Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Political Parties

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for reopening talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland to lead to the creation of a new political forum there.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which political organisations he has recently approached for discussions; and which have agreed to an exchange of views on the present political situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the Government's policy for constitutional progress in the Province.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): I have recently had separate meetings with the leading members of the Official Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.
I have told each party that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to establish in Northern Ireland a fully devolved legislative Administration which both parts of the community can support and sustain. But no such devolved Government can or will be imposed. Because I do not think that the time has yet come when such a fully devolved Administration can be established by agreement, I have invited the parties to enter into

talks with my officials to see whether it might be feasible to reach agreement on some from of partial devolution as an interim stage. I have no detailed blueprint to offer, but I have indicated to the parties the framework within which I propose that the talks should take place.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and extend good wishes for the success of these talks. As he knows some of us feel that they should have taken place earlier. Will he indicate—I think this arises from his statement—that he has a wide remit in terms of detailed proposals? He talks about not imposing solutions. Will he not close his mind to the possibility that, even if he cannot get agreement from all political parties in Northern Ireland, it might be right this time to proceed and back his own judgment in the end?

Mr. Mason: I shall, of course, be prepared to consider the latter point, depending how the bilateral talks between the parties and the officials go.
Secondly, I must warn the House that, at this stage, all the parties have not finally agreed, because a number of them are reporting back to their executives this weekend. Therefore, much of what is said today could be sensitive to those meetings. I have not been able to proceed earlier because, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, there was an election in the South which could have determined attitudes in the North, there was the Queen's visit, which was a major exercise and took a great deal of my attention, and, finally, there was the Summit Conference between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister. Once those matters were out of the way, and with the improving climate in Northern Ireland, I thought that it was right to start.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, though the security situation has eased considerably—Labour Members who have been to Northern Ireland during the past week have observed that at first hand—there is urgency about the political initiative which he is taking bearing fruit? Will he accept from me that if the intransigent attitudes of the past are still maintained by some hon. Gentlemen opposite it could throw to the winds the good work


that has been achieved so far? I do not want to be pessimistic, but I am worried about that aspect. Something must be achieved against the good background that now exists.

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is quite right. If people take their old-fashioned, intransigent attitudes, we shall not make any progress in these talks. But the meetings with party leaders so far have been responsible and constructive, and our approach at this stage is very positive.

Mr. Gow: Will the Secretary of State take the House into his confidence by saying what he means when he refers to
partial devolution as an interim stage"?
Is he talking about administrative devolution to try to bridge the gulf between the district councils and himself?

Mr. Mason: Of course, the intention is to bridge the gulf between the local district councils and Westminster, but not on a local government administration basis. My intention is to devolve back to Northern Ireland real powers, not necessarily legislative. There will be an Assembly based on proportional representation. It will have a consultative rôle regarding legislation, but the devolved powers, whether on transport, environment, planning or whatever, will go to committees. I hope that there will be a partnership basis to run them.

Mr. Molyneaux: Before the Secretary of State becomes involved and entangled in these protracted and possibly very frustrating discussions, will he take practical steps to restore to the people of Northern Ireland the missing upper tier of local government, bearing in mind what has been said by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)?

Mr. Mason: No, I do not think that would be right. It would frustrate the efforts of all the parties. My officials and I are embarking upon the devolution of real power in Northern Ireland as an interim step towards the devolution of a legislative Assembly and the whole range of powers.

Mr. John Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we were meeting political parties in Northern Ireland, some criticism was made about his policy along the lines of the previous question and that his proposals had not been more specific?

Will he make it abundantly clear that, if we are to find any solution that will have the broad support of both sections of the community, it is incumbent on the politicians in the various parties in Ulster to make a positive contribution, and to spell out what they think and how they will meet the criterion?

Mr. Mason: I appreciate my hon. Friend's dilemma, but that is the dilemma of Northern Ireland. The political parties will not spell out specifically exactly what they want. My approach is one of flexibility. I expect that, if the talks with my officials get off the ground, there will be an input of ideas by both sides and all parties to flesh out the framework that I have outlined.

Mr. Neave: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we warmly welcome the talks that he is holding, the Opposition consider that it is his duty to produce a constitutional plan for Northern Ireland? We suggest that he cannot just leave that to the political parties. Will he reconsider what he has just said about restoring democratic control to local government? This is a very serious and important matter, notwithstanding the question of a future Assembly.

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views and of those of the official Unionist Party, as explained by Harry West in Northern Ireland—namely, that they would like a local government tier. But if we are to make progress on the policy of Her Majesty's Government, shared by the parties in this House, to give Northern Ireland an Assembly and a full range of powers, we must try to make progress in that regard. I hope, therefore, that I shall receive the support of the major parties in the House as I gradually tread through this minefield. The reason that I do not place before the parties a blueprint in detail is that the parties in Northern Ireland would immediately fragment again.

Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland seems to have a somewhat schizophrenic approach to future developments? One section believes that there should be devolved government in Northern Ireland. Another section is hell bent on bringing about integration, having restored to Northern Ireland the


local government functions which caused the disaster of the past 50 years and which would lead to total integration. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the absence of a devolved Parliament, no attempt should be made to hand back to local authorities, as at present constituted, the powers that they formerly had?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend spells out clearly that local government to the minority populus of Northern Ireland would indicate that it would be treading the integrationist path. Therefore, they would not be prepared, in any circumstances, to participate in that sort of role. I hope that the Opposition will recognise that, if I am gradually to solve the political problems of the Province, we must try to make headway through this attempt—namely, bilateral talks with officials—to flesh out the framework.
My hon. Friend is to have a major meeting on Saturday. I hope that he will return on Monday and let me know that the SDLP is prepared to participate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed much longer on that Question because it clearly was a major issue, but we must move on more quickly.

Container Re-furbishing Limited

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland it he will make a statement on the discussions the Department of Commerce has had to date with Container Re-furbishing Ltd., Newry, so far as they effect the position of the employees and the prospects for employment.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Recent discussions between Container Refurbishing Limited and my officials have centred on a request that the Government should guarantee the payment of certain grants before the end of November. As the company had not fulfilled one of the conditions upon which the grants were offered, and as other financial information relating to the future trading of the company had not been supplied, I have been unable to accede to the company's request. During these discussions I have been very conscious of the interests of the workers concerned.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister of State take it that I am grateful to him for having kept me constantly in touch with the details of the very difficult and regrettable situation that has arisen? Will he assure the House that, within the powers of his Department, he will have regard, first, to the interests of the existing or past employees, and second, to the employment situation in Newry?

Mr. Concannon: Yes, I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman assurances on those matters. I have already given them to the workers involved there. But it causes me great distress to find that a group of weekly-paid workers are owed two weeks' wages and monthly-paid workers at least a month's wages. The firm owes its workers a total of nearly £7,500. I find that very distressing, and I shall do all in my power to ensure that the money legally due to them is paid into the pockets of those people as quickly as I can.

Poleglass Housing Inquiry

Mr. Fitt: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish the report and findings of the Poleglass housing inquiry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I hope to be able to publish the report on the Poleglass inquiry and the Government's decisions in about two months. This timing depends upon early receipt from the Planning Appeals Commission of an outstanding part of the public inquiry report.

Mr. Fitt: In view of the appalling housing conditions in the city of Belfast, particularly in West Belfast, does not the Minister think that there has been a disgraceful and completely unjustified delay in producing the report? Can he give any indication of steps that he may be taking now? When the report is available, how quickly will he be able to get houses constructed on the site?

Mr. Carter: I share all my hon. Friend's fears and worries about the situation in West Belfast. It is extremely bad. In fact, the conditions are the worst in the whole of Belfast. However, I must


point out that the Planning Appeals Commission is an independent body, and there is little that I can do to press it along its way. As for West Belfast, I and the officials in my Department are actively looking at the problem there, and we hope that, whatever decision is taken at the Poleglass inquiry, when the report lands on my desk, its findings will be associated with all the other investigations that we are carrying out and these will be embodied in a final report.

Mr. Bradford: First, does the Minister accept that the Poleglass scheme would be a flagrant breach of the Matthew Stop Line? Second, would the new conurbation not be prone to the same malignant pressures which are exerted upon Twinbrook? Finally, does the Minister accept that the Hannahstown area would be an alternative site for housing required for West Belfast, and that that would not mean a major breach of the Matthew Stop Line?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member is merely restating all the views, attitudes and opinions which have been rehearsed over the years in Belfast and which have been put before the inquiry. I simply have now to await the result of that inquiry and make a decision on the basis of its report.

House Building

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the level of house building in the Province.

Mr. Carter: I would hesitate to use the word "satisfied" about any aspect of housing in Northern Ireland. A great deal of progress has been and is being made in the provision of new public sector housing outside Belfast. My chief concern is with speeding up necessary new building in the redevelopment areas, especially in inner Belfast, and the improvement of older houses. I am disappointed at the level of private house building in the lower price bracket. I trust that measures now being taken or contemplated will reverse the downward trend.

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Have there been any signs of an increase in private house purchase as a result of the wide

range of new measures which he is introducing, and can he foresee any material improvement in the house building programme in Belfast in the very near future?

Mr. Carter: In the private sector, I have announced the introduction of the option mortgage scheme, and we are currently looking at the prospect of equity sharing in the private sector. We know from figures available to us that there are about 7,000 houses in the private sector under construction. That figure will not necessarily translate itself into 7,000 completions in a given year, but all the signs are that at least in the private sector we shall be picking up.
We are in some difficulty in the public sector because we have now switched our policy from greenfield development towards the redevelopment of the centre of Belfast. That will take some time, because redevelopment is not as easy. In redevelopment areas we have to cope with the problems of acquisition, vesting, and so on. Until we acquire expertise in that field we shall not be able to move quite as fast as we want to.

Mr. Kilfedder: Have not the Government created a scandalous situation whereby, on average, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has more people, particularly young married couples, living in overcrowded and substandard housing? Is the Minister aware that the Government have created only two records: first for the number of jobs for officials; secondly, for the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Carter: This is a serious subject. Anyone who looks at the history of housing in Northern Ireland cannot lay all the problems at the doorstep of the Government in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done. Of course, there are problems, historically and otherwise, but we are trying to cope with them. My officials, myself and everybody in housing, the Executive, the building industry, and the trade unions are trying to do what we can to overcome all those problems that were erected in the past. Contributions such as that from the hon. Gentleman simply will not help.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister agree that the record of 1968, 1969 and


1970 shows that it is possible to build substantially more houses in Northern Ireland than are currently being built? What is he doing to motivate the Housing Executive to meet its responsibility?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the past few years we have not been building as many houses, publicly or privately, as we were 10 years ago. But, as I have explained—and the policy has been approved and accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite—we have now switched the public sector drive away from greenfield development towards inner city redevelopment, particularly in Belfast. We simply cannot move in that area as fast as we should like, for obvious reasons.
We have taken considerable initiatives in the private sector. The option mortgage scheme, equity sharing, and so on, will all stimulate private sector activity.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister tell us how many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are raising the problem of the shortage of houses voted in the House against public expenditure cuts?

Mr. Carter: I do not wish to rub it in Hon. Members opposite know that there is no subject in Northern Ireland that is surrounded with more difficulty than is housing. Only two days ago I announced legislation repealing Acts going back to 1917 that restricted rents to 50p a week. Hon. Gentleman opposite had been going along happily with those Acts of Stormont—and possibly of this House also—for many years. We are now trying to put matters right.

Mr. Speaker: I must ask for shorter answers, otherwise we shall not reach Questions that could be reached.

Taxis

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the number of hackney carriage licences issued in Belfast in each of the past three years.

Mr. Carter: The number of hackney carriage licences issued for Belfast in each of the past three years was 634 in 1974, 734 in 1975, and 735 in 1976.

Mr. Freud: As that is clearly not the total number of taxis, will the Minister

accept that the large number of un licensed, overcrowded and potentially dangerous taxis in Belfast at present is very much out of line with his policy of fair and effective enforcement of the law?

Mr. Carter: I am sorry, but the figure that I have given represents the total number of taxis operating in that city. If the hon. Gentleman has different information, I shall be pleased to hear it.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the procedures for the interrogation of suspects carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate the allegations about the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the light of a recent Thames Television documentary film.

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he has in mind for combating the current campaign of unfounded and generalised allegations of misconduct against the Royal Ulster Constabulary which is designed to undermine the morale of the force and the confidence of the public.

Mr. Mason: The detailed procedures laid down by the Chief Constable for the questioning of suspects include specific safeguards against the possibility of deliberate ill-treatment. Any complaints against the RUC are thoroughly investigated. Those alleging a criminal offence are referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether to proceed against those concerned. Details of every complaint and of the subsequent inquiry are open to scrutiny by an independent Police Complaints Board.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious allegations made by Thames Television recently about interrogation procedures in Castlereagh ought to be investigated by his own Department, particularly as they were based on the testimony of a number of doctors? Does he not think that that is necessary, both because such procedures as were alleged—if, indeed, they happened—would be in contravention of


Section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and also because they would be a blemish on the reputation of the RUC, which has been gaining much more widespread general acceptability in the Province as a whole under Chief Constable Newman?

Mr. Mason: No. I have not felt that the accusations were strong enough for my Department or myself to intervene. The Thames Television programme on the occasion referred to was riddled with unsubstantiated accusations. I said that it was irresponsible and insensitive, and I still believe that it was. That was the third programme that Thames Television had put out. The first was about the black side of the Queen's visit; the second was a film about prison conditions in Northern Ireland, within 48 hours of which the senior prison officer was murdered; and on this last occasion the Chief Constable had to issue an instruction, on the same night as that film went out, to let every policeman in Northern Ireland know that his life was at greater risk than before.

Mr. Wall: Would it not have been in the public interest if the producer of the programme had notified the right hon. Gentleman of his anxieties and asked for an inquiry, instead of giving widespread publicity to unsubstantiated allegations, which can only undermine the integrity of the security forces?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that reporters or television producers should operate in that fashion, or that it is right for me to be the referee or the judge. It so happens that Thames Television is a member of the IBA. It has a code of conduct, and it believes that it worked within it. I am sorry that it allowed the programme to go out.
But I must warn the House that we are going through a difficult phase. When the RUC is having such good attrition rates against terrorists—UVF or Provisional IRA—its major weapon is propaganda. There is, no doubt, a propaganda wave against the success of the RUC. Secondly, the House should remember that every one of the terrorists who are held and feel that there is sufficient evidence against them, and go to gaol, will register a complaint, because if he does not, when he goes into gaol his mates will want to know why he has not complained, and will treat him accordingly.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State feel that it is significant that every time the terrorists are under pressure their allies come to the rescue with all manner of allegations against the security forces in general?

Mr. Mason: Yes. It could be good copy; it could be good television. The reporters may feel that they have been taken on, but they do not mind, if it is good copy. I am absolutely against Press censorship but I feel that in the conditions of Northern Ireland, Press men and people connected with the media must act responsibly and with a proper degree of sensitivity.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are at one with him in the remarks that he has just made, and that we agree with him that censorship is abhorrent? But have not the BBC and the IBA a moral responsibility to place a higher value on the lives of police officers and prison officers—one recalls that Mr. Irvine's murder followed his television interview—than on sensational programmes, which the right hon. Gentleman ironically described as "good television"? Have these authorities, with their responsibility to the British people, ignored the representations that the Secretary of State made, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)?

Mr. Mason: First, one has to recognise that cheque-book television is much more dramatic and dangerous than cheque-book journalism. It can quickly frighten and it can more easily incite. We have had an example of that. All I say is that within Northern Ireland that is self-evident and should be taken into consideration.
Finally, the Chief Constable's report is available for everyone to see. Last year, papers relating to the investigation of 1,110 complaints were forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions—an independent person. Criminal prosecutions were directed in 38 cases, there was no prosecution in 868, and 204 were still pending at the end of the year. One reason why I do not intervene at this stage is to prove to the House that the police are not beyond the law. If they are guilty of a criminal offence, they will be treated accordingly.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Mason: I have regular meetings with the Chief Constable, and expect to meet him again next week.

Mr. Canavan: In view of recent allegations about police brutality at Castlereagh and elsewhere and the fact that in the first instance the RUC investigates these complaints against itself, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Chief Constable the question whether it would be fairer to extend the independent element of inquiry into police complaints by giving the new Police Board the responsibility of investigating all complaints against the police, including complaints of criminal misbehaviour by the police?

Mr. Mason: I hope that my hon. Friend will follow this matter carefully. The independent Police Complaints Board which has been established in Northern Ireland has been operative since 1st September this year. Complaints and reports go to the Board, and if it wishes, it can make a further scrutiny of those complaints.

Mr. Bowden: When the Secretary of State next sees the Chief Constable will he consider with him the advisability of publishing all the evidence that he has of deliberate plots and schemes that have been prepared by the IRA to discredit the RUC, particularly in relation to self-inflicted injuries, and will he make this information known?

Mr. Mason: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Chief Constable. But if the hon. Gentleman were a regular reader of the Irish Press he would have seen that the Chief Constable has often revealed information about proven cases of prisoners inflicting wounds on themselves and trying to use that as evidence against the RUC. It is often published in the Northern Ireland Press.

Mr. Carson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, because of the difficult task facing the RUC and the danger that it faces day after day it is high time that he allowed it to have the weapons that have been promised for so long? Vehicles are long overdue for delivery. The RUC

should be equipped with these vehicles and weapons immediately.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. All the M1 carbines that the RUC wanted have now been delivered, and training has taken place. I have increased the establishment of the vehicles, and the RUC is receiving them now. Almost all the vehicles which were required—properly protected—have been delivered.

Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that many professional medical men—doctors who have taken an oath—have put their reputation at stake? They have made the allegations as well. In the interests of everyone, and particularly in the interests of the police, will my right hon. Friend agree to afford such facilities as will decide them one way or another?

Mr. Mason: As regards affording facilities, my hon. Friend will know that Amnesty International has decided to go to the Province to make an investigation itself, and I have decided that it will get full co-operation. The organisation will have explained to it the complaints procedures. We shall give it what information we can, but not on individual cases because most of those are sub judice. I have no fear of the organisation coming to the Province and making a full examination.
I am aware of doctors' complaints, but I also know of proven cases of people under examination inflicting wounds upon themselves. I also know of those who had injuries before they went in and who after their 48 hours' interrogation refused to allow a doctor to examine them so that they could try to prove on coming out that they had been injured. We have to look at both sides.

Seat Belts

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to lay an order requiring compulsory use of seat belts in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Carter: It is my intention to publish a proposal for a draft Roads and Road Traffic Order in Council early in December in which power will be sought to require the driver and front passenger


of certain motor vehicles to wear seat belts.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that the reason the legislation on seat belts did not go through this House was that a large number of unresolved dilemmas and difficulties were brought out in debate? Would it not be calamitous for him to short-circuit those awkward questions and that debate by laying an Order in Council? Further, might it not be risking human life to require seat belts to be worn in areas where there could be car bombs or terrorist attacks, for seat belts could delay the driver in escaping from a vehicle?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member is wrong on the first point. The order will be subject to affirmative resolution and there will be a full-ranging discussion on the subject. There will be no denial of the democratic process. As for his second point, those who would be affected by the wearing of seat belts in a security sense will be exempted under the legislation.

Mr. Powell: Would the Government be seeking to make this change in the law of Ireland if they had to do it in the same way as they have to change the law in any other part of the kingdom?

Mr. Carter: The right hon. Member should know—he has made no comment so far on the subject—that the proposals stemmed from an independent inquiry set up in Northern Ireland to examine road conditions in Northern Ireland. The first recommendation was that the wearing of seat belts should be made compulsory. The right hon. Member will equally know that in other aspects of the law he and his hon. Friends are pressing the Government to take action of a unique kind for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Canavan: As an estimated 60 lives could be saved every year in Northern Ireland if the order were implemented, is it not sheer irresponsibility for hon. Members opposite to use delaying tactics which may cause deaths?

Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right, and I think that the people of Northern Ireland would regard it with the utmost cynicism if the proposal for seat belts for Northern Ireland was beaten down on

a procedural point in the House of Commons.

Mr. Neave: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition take a very serious view of the constitutional questions involved here? I support what my hon. Friends have just said. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government's Bill to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts is not even in the Queen's speech and is not being revived in this Session? In that case, why is Northern Ireland being singled out for this treatment by Order in Council? Will he explain the constitutional practice of trying to extend what is sensitive primary legislation to Northern Ireland in this way?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I cannot predict with any certainty, but we shall be introducing measures for Northern Ireland that were not in the Queen's Speech, and I am sure that they will receive the support of the hon. Gentleman.
The truth about this proposal is that it stemmed from a request by Northern Irish people in Northern Ireland. Every representative of every organisation concerned with road transport and passenger safety in Northern Ireland is in favour of the proposal—the Press, the media, surgeons, and the medical world generally. The only people who appear to be against it are the Opposition.

Mr. Neave: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has entirely missed the point? This is a constitutional issue. Why has Northern Ireland been singled out as a guinea pig by an Order in Council for a sensitive bit of social legislation of this kind?

Mr. Carter: It is true that this is a sensitive issue, but many other issues in Northern Ireland are treated in a unique way and the hon. Gentleman does not object to that being done. We shall bring this measure to the House, and it will be subject to debate. It will be an affirmative order and can be defeated at the end of the day.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Fairey Britten-Norman Company

Mr. Craig: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give an assurance that the Government are giving the maximum assistance to Short Bros. Ltd. in its efforts to acquire the right to manufacture Britten-Norman aircraft together with the jigs and tools connected therewith.

Mr. Michael MacNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Chairman of Short Brothers and Harland about the proposed take-over by the company of a substantial part of the Fairey Britten-Norman Company.

Mr. Concannon: The Government have maintained regular and close communications with Short Brothers and have given the company every encouragement in its efforts to acquire on appropriate terms the trading assets relating to the Britten-Norman aicraft through negotiation with the Receiver of Britten-Norman (Bembridge) Limited and the President of the Tribunal of Commerce in Belgium.

Mr. Craig: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he fully appreciate the importance of this acquisition to the future rôle of the aircraft side of Short Brothers Limited, and also to fill the ugly gap left by the closure of RAF Sydenham?

Mr. Concannon: Yes, and I appreciate the help that the right hon. Gentleman and the work force in Sydenham have given me with this project. That is why we are following it up as hard as we possibly can. It is the only thing on the stocks that could be helpful to the work force at Sydenham, and I give the assurance that this matter will be followed up as closely as possible.

Mr. Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this, not only in the interests of employment in Northern Ireland, but because it is a particularly fine aircraft and is most important to air communications in Scotland and throughout the world?

Mr. Concannon: Yes, of course. That is why Short Brothers Limited in Northern Ireland has a lead, and why the aircraft will be a valuable asset to the

existing marketing arrangements of the company.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that the Britten-Norman aircraft was originated in the Isle of Wight, where 240 were built, and that, although my constituency has no great objections to the proposed take-over by Short Brothers Limited, we seek assurances that the employment of more than 300 people in the Isle of Wight who were responsible for the design and fitting out of the aircraft will remain in the Isle of Wight, where we now have a 9 per cent. unemployment rate?

Mr. Concannon: Yes, Sir. I understand the difficulties and what 9 per cent. unemployment means in such an area, but in unemployment terms in Northern Ireland I am talking about figures ranging between 30 per cent. and an average of 12 per cent. But that does not help. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Managing Director of Short Brothers Limited has assured the trade union interest at Bern-bridge that he has no intention of decimating the Bembridge labour force. On the contrary, he proposes to retain as many of the work force as he reasonably can.

Education (Sectarianism)

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what future action he is going to take to weaken the sectarian base of Ulster's educational system.

Mr. Carter: The Government's firm policy is to encourage integrated education wherever there is a local wish for it. There is, of course, no question of the Government attempting to force anyone to act against his will, nor of withdrawing public financial support from denominational schools. But the Government have been glad to take every opportunity to encourage school authorities to consider integration. This has been done in the recently published discussion paper on pre-school provision, in the inspectorate's feasibility study of sixth form colleges, and in the setting up of a working party on school management arrangements, which is to look particularly at the implications for integration.

Mr. Townsend: Is the Minister aware that, over the years, opinion polls have


suggested a very high measure of support in Northern Ireland for integration? The latest poll suggested about 86 per cent. support among both Catholics and Protestants. Will the Government now get a move on and come forward with some firm and effective proposals?

Mr. Carter: I am aware of the sincerity with which the hon. Member puts his question, but opinion polls in Northern Ireland can produce one answer and practical experience quite another. Whilst we are prepared to support the principle, wherever it appears to come forth, generally speaking we see no reason to tamper with the existing system.

Mr. Powell: Is it not difficult to seek to dissuade citizens in Northern Ireland from availing themselves of the right which we vindicate for them in Great Britain of having their children educated in a religious environment if they so wish?

Mr. Carter: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I doubt whether most Opposition Members or, indeed, Members on the Government Benches, would advocate changes in Northern Ireland which they would not advocate in their own constituencies.

Sir Nigel Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government's attitude will be to the Private Member's Bill on this subject, to be reintroduced today by Lord Dunleath in another place? Will he explain why the Government seem to be keen on introducing into Northern Ireland legislation on comprehensive education but strangely reluctant, or slow, to do anything about the far more divisive sectarian segregation in the Province?

Mr. Carter: Comprehensive education and the principle embodied in it are possible. The other route that the hon. Gentleman would urge us along is not possible. My noble Friend will be replying to the debate in the House of Lords today. We are in favour in principle, but that is as far as we and he will go this afternoon.

Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to introduce legislation to repeal the

Payments of Debt (Emergency Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1971 during the present parliamentary Session.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is, however, actively considering the whole problem of public debt in Northern Ireland and hopes to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Litterick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the circumstances which prompted the passage of this Act six years ago have now changed radically and that the continuance of the practice of the unilateral reduction of social security benefits and wages by the State is a dangerous precedent for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dunn: No, Sir. I do not agree.

Milk

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that the farm-gate price of milk in Northern Ireland should be on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom after 1st January 1978.

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have been considering this complex problem for some time and are continuing to do so. It is our intention to take all practicable steps, consistent with financial constraints and the common agricultural policy, to ensure the continued prosperity of the Northern Ireland dairy industry.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that disaster is now only a month away, and similar bland answers to that which he has given today have been given for several months now? Is it not time that he came up with something concrete?

Mr. Dunn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do all in our power to conclude our considerations on this matter. We hope to make a statement as early as we can.

DUBLIN

Mr. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Dublin.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Townsend: Will the Prime Minister explain to Mr. Lynch that any call from the Irish Government for a long-term British disengagement from the North would only intensify and prolong the current IRA campaign in the North?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to Dublin, but I think that on the last occasion when the Taoiseach and I met we discussed these matters, and the communiqué that was published afterwards represented our views very clearly.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Prime Minister ask Mr. Lynch to review immediately the situation in which Provisional IRA members wanted for crimes in Northern Ireland are not extradited from the Republic, despite the fact, for instance, that the Republic has successfully sought the extradition from Holland of an alleged IRA member who was wanted on a charge of attempted armed robbery?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to Dublin, but it is the case that the Government of the Republic have taken action in certain very serious cases—including one in particular that is in everyone's mind—and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the Heads of State of the EEC.

The Prime Minister: I expect to meet His Majesty The King of the Belgians and the President of the French Republic, as well as the Heads of Government of other EEC countries, on the occasion of the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 5th and 6th December.

Mr. Watkinson: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Heads of State, will he stress not only the material benefits of reforming the CAP but the political benefits of the early admission of Greece, Portugal and Spain? Does he agree that Mediterranean democracy would benefit from this, as would the development of a non-federalist Europe?

The Prime Minister: On many occasions the Government have made their position clear to the Heads of Government of Greece, Spain and Portugal, namely, that we would welcome their accession to the Community. We believe that it would be a means of strengthening democracy in those countries. We believe that it would also be for the benefit of democracy in Europe as a whole as well as for the material well-being of the citizens of those countries.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the House last night decisively rejected the proposition for proportional representation in respect of Scotland, will the Prime Minister pursue that principle in respect of Europe? When he meets his EEC colleagues, will he explain to them that, while he has taken no notice of the Liberals in respect of devolution on this matter, he will equally take no notice of them in respect of proportional representation in European elections?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think we can draw a parallel line between what happens on devolution in Scotland, and the method of election there, and what happens in the EEC.

Mr. Molloy: When the Prime Minister meets the Heads of Government of the EEC States, will he point out to them today's announcement of the increase in the volume of investment in United Kingdom manufacturing, distributive and service industries, which is quite remarkable?

The Prime Minister: I shall have great pleasure in looking up those figures and in indicating to the Heads of Government what I know is the case—I think the whole House will welcome it—that there has been a substantial increase in the level of investment both in manufacturing industry and in the service industries in the third quarter of 1977. I hope that that will continue to be the case in the months ahead. I believe that the increase is particularly pleasing in plant and machinery.

Mr. Hordern: As the Prime Minister told the Heads of State in Europe that he would use his best endeavours to get direct elections to the European Parliament, will he give the House a categoric assurance that all his Ministers will be voting for the Bill tonight?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until 10 o'clock.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has always taken a slightly less pro-Market stance than many of his colleagues, which certainly does not compare with the pro-European party opposite? In view of that, why has he found it necessary to change the free vote that we had last July on direct elections to one in which Ministers are being placed in the predicament that soma, of them will be in tonight? Is it purely because of Liberal support? If that is the case, he has no need to worry about them. They are frightened to death of an election at any time.

The Prime Minister: Nobody need be in any predicament tonight. They are all Members of this House. But the policy of the Government is quite clear and has been stated by me on behalf of the Cabinet.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in ministerial appointments or responsibilities—including my taking on any of the existing responsibilities of other Ministers—unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to add that that is hoped to be a total and comprehensive blocking answer.

Mr. Winterton: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision in view of his right hon. Friend's policy of virtually ignoring the responsible nationalists within Rhodesia, his obsession with the Patriotic Front and its guerilla forces, and his apparent refusal and reluctance to support an internal settlement in Rhodesia based on adult universal suffrage?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can really take that view, considering that my right hon. Friend spent two and a half hours yesterday with Mr. James Chikerema, who represents Bishop Muzorewa.

Mr. Winterton: What did he say?

The Prime Minister: What he said is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman was asking me why he was ignored, and one cannot ignore someone and spend two and a half hours with him.
As to the obsession with the Patriotic Front, it is the case—as hon. Gentlemen frequently remind me—that the Patriotic Front is carrying on guerilla activity. It is, therefore, realistic to discuss these matters with the Patriotic Front. The policy of the Government is quite clear on these matters. We expect an election to be held. We are not choosing between African leaders. It is for the people of Rhodesia themselves to do that.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in contrast to the silly allegations that we have heard from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the Foreign Secretary, in his work on Rhodesia the Foreign Secretary has been the first Minister for a long time to succeed in bringing some movement into this really difficult question, and that he has, above all, gained the co-operation and respect of the American Administration in that work? Therefore, may I put this silly question to a serious purpose by asking the Prime Minister whether any progress is to be reported in the efforts of the Foreign Secretary in bringing about a solution in not only Rhodesia but Namibia?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. There has been considerable movement in Rhodesia on these matters. That is to be welcomed, and the support of the American Administration is particularly important in this regard. In the case of Namibia, progress is being made, although it is not being finalised as I should like to see it.
We could make even further progress in Rhodesia if the African leaders there, whether they belong to Bishop Muzorewa's, Mr. Mugabe's, Mr. Nkomo's or anybody else's group, were to come together to form a common front. At the moment, their rivalries are holding up the securing of a transfer of responsibility from Mr. Smith to the African people.

Mr. Churchill: As the principal interest of the Soviet Union in Central Africa in recent years has been to finance, train and arm forces of terrorism, will the


Prime Minister now categorically repudiate the unctuous and treacherous remarks made by the Foreign Secretary on his arrival in Moscow, about Britain's interests being identical to those of Russia?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The use of the word "treacherous" is unparliamentary.

Mr. Churchill: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "treacherous". However, will the Prime Minister now repudiate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had the question.

MOSCOW

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Moscow.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 8th November.

Mr. Rifkind: As the Prime Minister is not actually going to Moscow, will he now take the opportunity to answer my hon. Friend's question whether he agrees with the Foreign Secretary's remarks in Moscow about the interests of the Soviet Union being the same as those of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The Soviet Union, as a member of the Security Council, did not cast a vote against the Anglo-American initiative. That was very helpful, and it was that to which my right hon. Friend's remarks were related. I should add that before the initiative was taken I corresponded with General Secretary Brezhnev on the issue, explained to him that it was a serious initiative, and asked that the Soviet Union should consider it in that light and not as a propaganda device.
I believe that as a result of that correspondence the Soviet Union took what was perhaps the unusual course of not opposing the intiative and of allowing it to go forward. Therefore, I feel that my right hon. Friend was quite right to express his appreciation of that decision.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will my right hon. Friend protest to the Soviet authorities at

the continued detention of Yuri Orlov, Anatoli Sharanski, and of all those others detained for their attachment to human rights, and at the treatment of Academician Sakharov, one of the greatest leaders in the world today?

The Prime Minister: The policy of Her Majesty's Government on that matter has been made very clear by the Foreign Secretary on numerous occasions. The policy remains the same as it was.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that there can be no successful conclusion to the Belgrade review of the Helsinki Agreements until those in Russia whose only offence was to monitor the agreements are released from detention?

The Prime Minister: I share the concern, which is widely felt throughout the House and the country, about certain cases. The Government have made a number of representations on the matter from time to time. At the Belgrade meeting the Western Powers as a whole made their position clear. It has not been met by an adequate response from the Soviet Union, and we shall continue to make representations in the way that we think is likely to be most effective. As I explained to the right hon. Lady on previous occasions—I think she accepts this—for the Government to make public denunciations is not always the best way to secure the release to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. Sometimes that can be helpful; at other times it is better to do it privately. But that is no reason why any private citizen in this country should restrain himself from making his position clear.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a good definition of the word "treacherous" might be "an hon. Member who goes to Rhodesia and gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the Crown, Ian Smith", as did the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can use Question Time constructively, rather than throwing accusations from one side to the other on this matter. I pulled up the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and I hope that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will remember what I said.

Mr. Kinnock: My point was entirely constructive—I assure you of that, Mr. Speaker. May I ask my right hon. Friend clearly to demonstrate-—hether it is to be in public or in private—that we on the Government side of the House do not discriminate in the cause of human liberty between those who abuse it in Rhodesia and those who subordinate it in Russia, and that consequently the proper posture for the Foreign Secretary of this country, the people of this country and the democratic Socialist movement of this country to adopt is to assert that cause of freedom anywhere in the world, in any country and against any tyrant?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend and many others of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches have made their position clear on many occasions in relation to the situation in the Soviet Union and in Chile, Rhodesia and South Africa. I am not aware of any distinction. I hope that Opposition Members will make their position equally clear in relation to Rhodesia, in respect of which they seem to be extremely tender.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to withdraw the accusations that he made against me in respect of the visit that I paid to Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had identified any hon. Member I would most certainly insist on the accusation being withdrawn. I understood that he was using his words in a general argument. But the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) can clear the matter up in a second, if he makes it clear that he is not accusing anyone in this House of treachery.

Mr. Kinnock: In one second. I was using a definition of the word "treacherous", and there appeared to be a practical example at hand.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for argument across the Floor. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to accuse anyone in this House of being treacherous, and if he has done so I shall request him to withdraw his accusation.

Mr. Kinnock: In matters such as this, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you would

acknowledge—[Interruption.]—the defenders of free speech—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make himself clear, but I hope that he is not going to pursue an argument on the matter.

Mr. Kinnock: I think the best guide for my conduct on this subject, Mr. Speaker—though I would not dream of suggesting it to you—is that if caps are felt to fit, it is not an abuse; if they do not fit, the allegation is inaccurately made. If the cap does not fit, I withdraw the offer of the cap.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept the hon. Gentleman's withdrawal.

SCOTLAND BILL (DIVISION)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) raised with me a question et order about Members voting in both Lobbies during the same Division. I have been giving further thought to the matters that were raised both by the hon. Member for Pentlands and by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). The hon. Member for Paddington indicated to me that he had deliberately gone into both Lobbies to show that he was "positively abstaining."
There is a time-honoured custom in this House that when Members wish to abstain from voting, they do so by absenting themselves from the Division Lobby. If the Member uses both Lobbies, the only interpretation is that far from abstaining, he is positively voting for both sides.
The hon. Member for Pentlands seemed to be asking me for a ruling yesterday. My ruling is that if the name of any hon. Member is recorded in Hansard as having participated in a Division, he has certainly not abstained. That would be an obvious contradiction in terms. I hope that hon. Members will not persist in going into both the "Aye" Lobby and the "No" Lobby. as this will make a nonsense of our procedures.
All of us who are Members of this House are transient trustees of the dignity of the House. If the House wishes by


resolution to alter its procedure so as to provide for a record of abstentions, so be it. But, failing this, I look to all right hon. and hon. Members to support me in maintaining respect for our traditional system of voting in this House

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in agreement with your understanding of the traditions of the House that if a Member, having voted, realises that he has voted in a way which he did not intend, it is consistent with the traditions of the House and entirely desirable that he should then vote in the other Lobby rather than rising on a spurious point of order to explain that he did not intend to vote in the way that he did vote?

Mr. Speaker: I was trying to deal with a new situation which has arisen. The old custom where an hon. Member realises that he has made a mistake is, of course, available to hon. Members.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Faulds: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give consideration to the possibility of varying your now invariable practice of calling the same fellows at every Prime Minister's Question Time? We all know who they are. Will you also notice that others of us who stand, stand and stand and wait in this House also serve here?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling. I am not able to overlook the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Faulds: You do very well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: But I expect to be treated with proper courtesy as long as I am in this Chair. [Interruption.] Order. I have not finished yet.
The hon. Gentleman may feel that they were the same Members who were called time and again, but I have tried to vary those who were called from day to day. If the House wishes to know the movings of my mind on this matter, when we have Prime Minister's Questions followed by business questions, those who have had a bite at the cherry have to wait a little if they are lucky enough to be called,

but I try to ensure a fair hearing for everyone.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I make this comment simply because of what I have experienced at what is now two consecutive Prime Minister's Question Times, when on those same occasions, Sir, I have noticed that your eye seems to alight with a certain frequency on some of our colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: That is the oldest feeling in the world in this place. If the hon. Gentleman looks around he will find that some of his hon. Friends and some hon. Members from the other side feel that they stand for weeks and are never called.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Before we come to business questions, may I inform the House that I have on my list a far greater number of right hon. and hon. Members wishing to speak in the major debate to follow than I can possibly call today. The time that is taken on business questions will simply come out of the major debate.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 28TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock. Afterwards, motion on EEC Documents R/77 Nos. 2147, 2428, 2429, 2434, 2521 and 2642 on fisheries.

Motion on the code of practice on time off for trade union activities

TUESDAY 29TH NOVEMBER and WEDNESDAY 30TH NOVEMBER — Progress in Committee on the Scotland Bill.

At the end on Tuesday, motion on Financial Assistance to Industry (Thames Board Mills) Limited.

At the end on Wednesday, motion on EEC Document Com(67) 155 on architects' qualifications.

THURSDAY 1ST DECEMBER—Consideration in Committee on the European Assembly Elections Bill.

FRIDAY 2ND DECEMBER — Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 5TH DECEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: debate on a motion to take note of the First to Tenth Reports from the Select Committee on Public Accounts in Session 1976–77, and the related Treasury and Northern Ireland memoranda.

Motion relating to the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President about Thursday's business? On the assumption that the European Assembly Elections Bill receives a Second Reading, is it his intention to put down a motion to take the system of voting first on the first Committee day? Is he aware that many of us would agree with the view expressed by one of his hon. Friends that, because it is just as easy to define the constituencies in a schedule for the first-past-the-post system as it is to define the regional boundaries, the method of election does not affect our capacity to meet the deadline for elections? However, it would be of great assistance, I believe, and would secure the more rapid passage of the Bill, if we were to know the system early.

Mr. Foot: We had not thought of putting down such a motion as the right hon. Lady suggests. We thought that the best way was to proceed with the Bill as presented. From what the hon. Lady has said now, it seems that the matter she has raised is more a question for debate than for consideration in the way she suggests. I shall look at the point if she wishes me to do so, but I should have thought that it was better to proceed with the Bill as it has been presented to the House already.

Mr. David Watkins: Can my right hon. Friend say when there may be a debate on the report of the Services Committee on payments and facilities for Members' secretaries and research assistants?

Mr. Foot: I fully accept that the House should have an early opportunity of debating the matter. Certainly, we want the House to have a chance to give its view on the matter soon if it be necessary or desirable that the arrangements should be brought into operation next year. If we do not have a chance of debating

it before we depart for the Christmas Recess, I shall try to arrange a debate very soon afterwards.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Leader of the House give us an early opportunity to debate the Carter Report on the future of the Post Office? The other place has discussed it. Surely it is time the report was discussed on the Floor of this Chamber.

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise that we shall have a debate on it before Christmas. As I said last week, there are a number of matters with which we have to deal before the recess. But I agree that it is a proper and important matter for debate, and I shall see what the opportunities are later. It is a matter that could be raised by hon. Members in other ways.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand that on Monday 5th December, on the motion relating to the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order, the Leader of the House will be asking the House to affirm the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the dismissal of a member of the Scottish judiciary. In view of the potential importance of that matter, and without commenting on the merits, is the Leader of the House happy that one and a half hours is sufficient time for such a debate? Is there not a case for at least a half-day debate on that kind of issue?

Mr. Foot: I accept fully what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the importance of the subject and the constitutional implications that are involved. That is why we have carried out our pledge to arrange the debate. No one was more eager to have that debate than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Mr. Haxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should not say anything of the sort. From the very moment when the matter was broached, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland urged that the proper way for it to be dealt with was by a debate in this House. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that. The normal method of dealing with a Prayer before the House would be to have a debate for one and a half


hours. If we were to be asked for a longer debate, we should have to consider that. I do not give the hon. and learned Gentleman a promise, but I shall look at his representations, because I fully acknowledge the importance of the subject, as I have done on previous occasions.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the most important and most controversial amendments to the Scotland Bill are likely to arise on the referendum clause? Is he willing, in principle, that the Business Committee should consider revising the guillotine allocations on clauses if it appears that we need more time—even for votes, and not only discussions—on important amendments which have a chance of being accepted?

Mr. Foot: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the clauses dealing with the referendums, both in the Scotland Bill and in the Wales Bill. I underline the indications that I gave during the Second Reading of both Bills. On both occasions I indicated that, of course, the Government would have to look carefully at any representations made by the House on the subject. If it is necessary for the Business Committee to look afresh at the time allocated to ensure that we carry out those undertakings satisfactorily, I shall see that it does.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Leader of the House accept that a debate on Sheriff Thompson is a matter of extreme importance and great constitutional significance? Will he not agree that that debate does not deserve to be taken late at night, as an appendix to other business, but should have a full period of debate, and that the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) should be taken into account, with Sheriff Thompson being permitted to come to the Bar of the House and answer himself questions put to him by hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Foot: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have already acknowledged that I agree. Indeed, I have taken that view in response to all the questions which have been asked on the matter right from the beginning. It is a matter of considerable constitutional importance, should be treated as such, and is being treated as such. That is why we have provided

time for the debate and have carried out the undertaking that I gave on the subject. The question of appearance at the Bar raises altogether different matters. If hon. Members will look back at the precedents—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There are not any.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows everything, but he might learn a little more if he would listen a little longer. There is a precedent. There was a dismissal of a judge in 1830, and the House considered whether the judge should appear personally at the Bar. The House of Commons at that time decided not to do so. It was, of course, the Duke of Wellington's Parliament, but, even so, that decision should be taken into account. It is not true that there are no precedents. I believe that the House should accept what I have proposed as the best way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the public will be delighted to learn for how long the House will not sit during the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Foot: I am sure the House would be delighted to have that information, but I should prefer to wait until, say, next week before giving an indication in that respect. We want to see what progress we make. However, I shall take into account representations from my hon. Friend and others on the matter.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House on Monday to make a statement so that we may question him about the inadequate accommodation and the inadequate equipment with which many of our Service fire-fighters are struggling?

Mr. Foot: I cannot say whether my right hon. Friend will make a statement on Monday, but I shall discuss with him whether in fact a statement on the subject should be made next week.

Mr. Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House consider having a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the possibility of reintroducing the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill? This is almost the last country in Western Europe that does not have legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts.

Mr. Foot: The seat belts Bill and the clause in the Bill was a matter of considerable controversy in the House. There was a majority in favour of the proposal but there was a considerable minority against. That was why the measure did not go through. I understand that an Opposition Member is going to raise the matter for discussion in the House later today. We shall no doubt hear what is said then.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why does the Leader of the House arrogate to himself the decision, which properly belongs to the House of Commons and not to the Leader of the House, whether Sheriff Peter Thomson should be allowed to appear at the Bar of the House before the Prayer is taken? Why does he refuse to allow the House of Commons to take the decision on that matter by putting on the Order Paper. before we consider the Prayer, the motion signed by Members from every party except the Liberal Party, including the Labour Party, the Scottish Labour Party and others?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the position on this matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is true.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman does not misrepresent the position on the matter of various Members from different sides of the House signing the motion. I accept that that is the case. Of course, I have taken that motion into account. But if one takes into account that motion and one looks back at the precedents on the question, as I have carefully done, one sees that the last attendance at the Bar other than on a privilege question was in 1857. I do not believe that it is the appropriate way for this question to be dealt with. There is a whole series of matters which, I believe, uphold that view, but this will be debated in the House.
The action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in upholding the recommendations made by high judiciary authorities in Scotland will be debated in the House—as I certainly think it should be—and I believe that the House will see that we are proceeding in this matter in the proper manner.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House said that it will be appropriate

to debate on a negative resolution Prayer the question whether or not Her Majesty should annul an order to dismiss Sheriff Thomson made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, as to whether or not Sheriff Thomson should have the leave of the House to appear at the Bar. My understanding is that the proposition which the Leader of the House has just made would be totally out of order in such a debate on a Prayer. Would you, Mr. Speaker, tell the House whether it has been grossly misled by the Leader of the House in suggesting that it will be in order for the House to discuss whether Sheriff Thomson should have the leave of the House to appear at the Bar of the House during a debate on a Prayer, or whether I am correct in believing that the Leader of the House is totally wrong and has advised the House totally wrongly in making that proposition to it?

Mr. Speaker: I will advise the House before the debate takes place.

Mr. Sandelson: May we have another debate on the CPRS review—that is, the Berril Report?

Mr. Foot: As I indicated to the House on the previous two Thursdays, it is difficult to provide special time for debates before Christmas. I do not believe that there will be a possibility of a debate on that report before then. However, there may be other chances later on.

Mr. Amery: A fortnight ago, the Leader of the House gave me a very friendly answer when I asked whether he would find time for a debate on Southern Africa. Since then, there have been momentous developments in the Middle East as well. Although I fully realise that the House is now much more interest in matters of the parish pump than in other affairs which touch our interests closely, the House still has a great deal of experience of both Africa and the Middle East. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to find time for either two debates, one about Africa and one about the Middle East, or a general foreign affairs debate extending over two days, bearing in mind that vital British interests and bread-and-butter problems are at stake in both?

Mr. Foot: I acknowledge fully that both subjects are of supreme importance. Of course, it is right that they should be


debated at some time in this House. I am not withdrawing any of the friendly response that I made to the right hon. Gentleman last week, but I cannot offer time in the immedate future for these debates. There will be other opportunities for these matters to be debated. Some of them might have been debated on the Queen's Speech, but they were not selected. We shall see what opportunities there may be. I cannot promise debates on both those important matters, however, before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members do not think that they will be called if they rise on a point of order about not having been called. The truth is that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) has, like others, waited for a long time.

Mr. Faulds: I always appreciate applause, Mr. Speaker. I express my gratitude to you for noticing me in business questions, if not during Prime Minister's Questions. May I reiterate the importance of debating in the House the excellent examination and recommendations of the Whitehead Report? I stress the urgency of this matter because, if we do not debate it and do somethig about it by next April, another financial year will have flown by and we shall not be able to do anything until 1979.

Mr. Foot: I am glad to welcome my hon. and stranger Friend back to the House. Of course, we must have a debate on this subject before the operative time. I have already indicated that I know what that time is. I fully agree that the House should discuss this matter, and we must discuss it before the beginning of the next financial year.

Mr. Warren: Will the Lord President look at the need to reflect Back Benchers' interests against the growing problem of the transferred Question? Is he aware that this is a growing practice and that it is transferring many Questions into oblivion?

Mr. Foot: This matter has been discussed generally. I should not accept any criticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that matter, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not in any sense criticising him. In that case, I am not quite sure where the arrow is

directed. When I know, I shall investigate and see whether there is any merit in the proposition.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the great number of Members who wish to speak in the debate today, I shall take one more from each side.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when we are likely to have the legislative proposals on the reform of the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Foot: I cannot say when the proposals will be published. Obviously, when they are published the House will wish to debate them. I have no specific date in mind at present but I shall see whether before the Christmas Recess I can indicate to the House when the proposals are likely to be brought forward.

Mr. Tebbit: Since the Lord President is leaning on the precedent set by the late Duke of Wellington, would he be as good a democrat as the late Duke of Wellington and allow the House to decide whether an accused judge should come to the Bar of the House to answer charges? That is not to say that I advocate one course of action—whether he should come or not. But why cannot the House decide, as the Duke of Wellington allowed it to decide, whether the judge should be allowed to come here?

Mr. Foot: The House of Commons, not the Duke of Wellington, decided the matter at the time. If the House refers to the precedents, as I did—I looked up the past history on this matter—it will see that there have been considerable changes in the procedures of the House generally since then, including very considerable changes regarding those who should appear at the Bar. As I indicated earlier, it is over 100 years since anybody other than those who were involved in privilege cases appeared at the Bar. That fact should be taken into account as well.
We considered this matter very carefully, because we believed that important constitutional principles were involved. We looked at the representations for the debate, and we considered that this was the best way to have the debate so that Members would be able to state their


views. The Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to present to the House the reason for the action that he has taken.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matters of the Arts in Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, being matters relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration. —[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the second time in four months that the Bill has been before the House in substantially the same form. At the end of the two-day debate last July the Bill was given a Second Reading by a large majority. The Bill now before the House is in the same form, save for a few textual and comparatively minor amendments.
The problem for all of us who take part in this debate, and certainly for anyone moving the Second Reading of such a Bill, particularly one which was the subject of such intense pre-legislative discussion, is to say anything that has not been dealt with at weary length before. Although some repetition is unavoidable, I hope that I shall minimise that repetition, and when I do repeat what has been said earlier, I hope that the House will try to understand and forgive me.
Before I come to the main substance of my remarks today, I should mention that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has asked me to express his regrets to the House that he is unavoidably absent abroad. My right hon. Friend had very much hoped to be present for the debate and to vote. But, before the date for it was set, he had already agreed to meet the Spanish Foreign Minister today in Strasbourg for talks on Gibraltar, talks at which the Gibraltar Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition will also be present, in the margins of the Council of Europe ministerial meeting at which Spain will be admitted to that body. My right hon. Friend felt that he could not break that commitment in view of the importance of the search for a solution for Gibraltar and the fact that this will be the first direct contact between Spanish Ministers and representatives of Gibraltar.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the Foreign Secretary be abstaining?

Mr. John: Knowing my hon. Friend's views as I do, I should think that he would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's absence. It is neither a single abstention nor an each-way bet that is practised by some of my other hon. Friends.
I am sure the House will realise the importance of the Gibraltar question and the discussions now being formulated between the Gibraltar representatives and the Spanish Government and will excuse his absence on this occasion.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Hands-worth): It is much more sensible than this nonsense.

Mr. John: I am much obliged for even that limited support from my hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. John: I will not give way at the moment. You, Mr. Speaker, have already indicated how many hon. Members wish to speak on this occasion and I am only on the preamble by way of excusing the absence of another rather than developing the case on the substance of the Bill.
What my right hon. Friend has asked me to convey to the House is something that it already knows. I am to underline his view of the importance of the decision that is about to be taken. It is of constitutional significance, and that is why we have placed such great emphasis on having it discussed. This is the first extra-territorial assembly to which the United Kingdom will have directly elected representatives. That is why, in my view and the view of the Government, no snap decisions could be taken or ought to have been taken.

Mr. William Whitelaw: They certainly have not.

Mr. John: The right hon. Gentleman said that they certainly have not, and that is right, but I make no apologies for that. I should prefer a thorough debate on this important issue rather than for it to be rushed through and for people to regret it later. Even now this Second Reading debate will merely be the prelude to a more detailed scrutiny of the Bill, but it is upon this occasion that the House of Commons will affirm

—or, to put it more correctly, reaffirm —its commitment to the principle.
Even though I pay due regard to the importance of that decision, there is a danger on the part of some people, particularly those who oppose the measure, of exaggerating the effect of the Bill. I concede that its wider context will add to the importance of what is said in the Bill and in the debate, but I believe that it would be quite wrong for the House to over-emphasise or exaggerate the importance of the step that we are taking.
That is why I think it is necessary to reaffirm that the decision to have direct elections was taken because it was thought that directly elected representatives would make a more significant contribution to an Assembly that retained the same powers as it has today. The Bill does not transfer powers to Strasbourg or to Luxembourg. It merely determines how representatives shall be chosen.
The powers of the Assembly are laid down by the Treaty, and in order to alter the Treaty the unanimous consent of all nine countries is required. Before the powers of the European Assembly could be added to, the British Government would have to give their consent and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his letter to the NEC of the Labour Party, it is intended that any extension of the powers of the European Assembly would be effected here by means of an Act of Parliament.
There are, therefore, ample safeguards against any transfer that does not have the consent of Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on this occasion will affirm his party's commitment to a similar procedure.

Mr. Enoch Powell: Who, me?

Mr. John: No. I mean the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). I think that the right hon. Member for Douth, South (Mr. Powell) is mixing up de facto and de jure opposition, in this as in other matters.
Many people, additionally, seem to think that the fact of direct elections itself would lead inevitably and inexorably to a federal Europe. Most of those who say so are opponents of the Bill, but there are some supporters of the Bill who


do not hide that that is their aim. Much of the propaganda that I have read recently seems to have directed itself to this point and to saying that, because some people desire federalism, it must, therefore, be the aim of all who support direct elections. I believe that to be fallacious.

Mr. Neil Marten: rose—

Mr. John: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have developed the point, but before I leave it.
It is perfectly possible to support Manchester United without condoning all the violence of some so-called supporters of that team. I just do not believe that direct elections are inevitably a step towards federalism, any more than I believe that devolution is an inevitable step towards separatism. Of course, some hon. Members will vote for this measure today because they are federalists, just as some hon. Members voted for the Bills last week because they were separatist in their intent.
But the vast majority of hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends who may put forward such an argument today, rejected the view that there can be no reform short of separatism. So, too, do I reject the view that there can be no election short of federation.

Mr. Marten: I think that the country recognises that the referendum was largely won by the European Movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Its publication of November said
This is why we will work, up to the European elections and beyond, to transform the Community into a federal democracy … But the Community must move beyond this phase into that of a European Government under parliamentary control …".
It is this Parliament about which we are now talking—the Parliament that will control, with a European Government under it. This is the fear that many of us have about so many supporters of the European Movement—and I include many hon. Members on this side of the House. Can the hon. Gentleman say that he disagrees with that? I hope that other hon. Members on this side of the House will say that they disagree with that concept.

Mr. John: As I was about to explain on behalf of the Government—and I

make clear the commitment of the Government rather than of the European Movement, which seems to have built hypothesis upon hypothesis in that regard —they have made it clear that they do not support federalism. In his letter to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party my right hon. Friend said:
The Government has never accepted that the community should develop into a federation. It is our policy to continue to uphold the rights of national Governments and Parliaments.
Equally, I am advancing the argument that this Bill stands or falls on its merits as a measure to elect people directly to the Assembly, with the powers of that Assembly as they are today. It is no part of my thesis that we are considering it as a step towards federalism. There is no doubt at all about where the Government stand on this issue. They are against federalism and in favour of direct elections on the basis of exercising the existing Assembly powers.
There will continue to be people strongly committed to the federalist idea at all stages. They will continue to advocate their cause. We can never satisfactorily approach the matter on the basis that every time one of them pronounces on it we immediately believe that that is the next step to take. We do not believe that it is either the next step to take or, indeed, a step that it is necessary to take at all.

Mr. George Cunningham: In that case, are the Government prepared to build a self-destruct into this Bill if the powers of the Assembly are in fact changed?

Mr. John: This is something to be considered and will fall to be considered in Committee. The French have done so because they have a written constitution which necessitates it.
What I have said on behalf of the Government is that any extension of powers needing unanimous consent would come before this Parliament and would be passed through it here not by affirmative resolution but by Act of Parliament. I say that on behalf of the Government. Although I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes I do not believe that it is necessary for us to do that.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Minister therefore now say on behalf of the Government—we could not clear this up during discussions last Session—that they will not follow the Government of France by writing into the text of the Bill a binding provision that if there is an extension of power of any kind the legal commitment of this House and of the country to send Members to a European Parliament will become null and void? Are they refusing to follow the Republic of France in that course?

Mr. John: I am explaining the Bill as it is. There is no such provision in the the Bill, and I have been at pains to explain—obviously, with scant chance of success with my hon. Friend—that we do not believe it to be necessary, because there would be safeguard by the consent of Parliament being necessary to an Act of Parliament to transfer any additional powers to the Assembly over and above those which it already possesses.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. John: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I should be——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn right hon. and hon. Members—I know that those on their feet are anxious to speak—that too many interruptions will exclude one who might otherwise be able to speak.

Mr. John: I had intended to try to be fairly brief. I am trying to be, and I am not trying to dodge questions. We shall embark on a Committee stage which, I believe, will not be much truncated and there will be an opportunity to return to these points at a later stage. I hope that some of my hon. Friends who believe their points to be so important at the moment will make them during their speeches. If he catches the eye of the Chair later, my right hon. Friend will be able to take up those points.
Let me return to the main points of the Bill as it exists. As befits a Bill which is really a vehicle for the arrangements for these Assembly elections, many of the provisions are those which one would expect of a Bill to secure that end. Clause 5, for example, sets out who may vote in the election. Basically, they are those who would be entitled to vote in a parliamentary election, together with peers.
Clause 7 sets out the times of elections and how vacancies between such elections would be filled. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), as reported in The Sunday Times of 20th November, stated three conditions upon which he said that Labour Party candidates were to take part in such elections. The first, the powers, I have already dealt with, but the third is—and I quote his words—
Each country can choose its own European election day within agreed dates.
I should have thought that that was already covered by Clause 7. The European provision laid down that elections should take place in the same week, on a day between Thursday and Sunday to be chosen by the individual country. My hon. Friend's point is therefore already catered for, and I think it is certain that the election will take place on the day on which such elections are normally held in the United Kingdom, namely, on a Thursday.
Clause 8 provides for the appointment of the returning officers and election staff and Clause 9 lists those disqualified from being candidates.
Clause 6 then enables the procedures for Assembly elections to be as closely assimilated as possible to those that obtain for parliamentary and loyal government elections by enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts.
More importantly and controversially, the number of seats and the method of election are provided for by the Bill. The number of seats set out in Clause 2 is that allocated to the United Kingdom, namely, 81. It was set after discussions in the Council of Ministers. As a result of these negotiations we were given equal representation with our major Community partners.
It must be accepted, I believe, that this is an unchangeable overall figure. Various Members and various organisations have called for a redivision of the seats. The Select Committee recommended, and the Government have accepted, that upon the basis of 81 seats for the United Kingdom 66 seats should be allocated to England, eight to Scotland, four to Wales and three to Northern Ireland. This is so whatever the system of election chosen.
Those who call for a redivision must be aware that they can increase the representation of one part of the United Kingdom only at the expense of some other part. It is important to note, therefore, that England is already allocated about one and a half seats fewer than those to which a strictly proportional allocation of seats would entitle it. These go to round up the representation of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales has almost exactly a proportionate representation. It would not be right, therefore, in the Government's view to alter this division so as further to increase the electoral disparity between England and the other countries of the United Kingdom.
A matter that will be central to the whole of the discussions on the Bill will be the electoral system to be chosen, at any rate for the first elections. Clause 3 sets out the Government's recommendation as to the preferred system, and what we arc recommending is the regional list system. The choice between this and the other major contender, namely, the simple majority system, will be upon a basis of a free vote of the House of Commons. In a constitutional matter of this importance we believe that to be right and proper. I think that this answers the third of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham raised in the Sunday Times article.
We shall have opportunities of debating the minutiae of the respective systems and I do not propose to go into too great detail at this stage. The advantage that we see for the regional list system derives from the fact that the Assembly is a consultative and advisory body which has neither legislative nor executive powers. In our view, such a body would be better served by an electoral system reflecting the division of view within our country rather than one with a greater chance of a clear result, which is far more important for a legislative or executive body.
The division of the country into electoral regions for the regional list system is secured by the Bill, and as a result of our previous discussions—certainly our debate for two days in July—the system is now well understood by hon. Members on all sides of the House. Whether it is any better liked we shall see in due course.
The first-past-the-post system is already familiar and I need to point out only

three things in connection with that system. First, it will need a Boundary Commission procedure, which we believe should be option B in the White Paper, namely, a truncated one that will take about 18 weeks after the Royal Assent. That will allow for one round of representations but no local inquiries. As a result, the draft constituencies should be known within a few weeks of the Boundary Commission examining them—probably within a fortnight.
In reply to a previous intervention by the right hon. Lady on the Business Question may I say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not in the business of fixing these divisions for himself. I know how easy it is for the cry of "Gerrymander" to go up. My right hon. Friend is determined that that shall not be the cry made of him.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: If it were in a schedule it would be Parliament that was fixing it, not the Home Secretary.

Mr. John: But the right hon. Lady cannot have forgotten so easily the events of 1969, when it was precisely what happened and precisely the reaction of Opposition Members on that matter. My right hon. Friend bears the scars of that debate to this day and it is part of his experience of that time that he will not repeat the experience of setting down himself in the schedule the boundaries to be followed.

Mr. Ian Gow: A moment ago the Minister of State was at pains to stress to the House that the European Assembly had no legislative powers. Perhaps I may quote an extract from a document published by the London office of the European Parliament Secretariat in January last year:
Parliament's powers are likely to be steadily extended in the future. The Summit Conference in December 1974 decided, in particular, to increase Parliament's competence in the Community's legislative process.
Those are not my words. They are the words of the document produced by the London office of the European Parliament.

Mr. John: Nor are they my words. I just do not accept what is said there. I accept what is said in Article 137 of the Treaty, which describes the Assembly as advisory and supervisory. I believe that it is upon that that we have to


measure our response to it. But I think that the hon. Gentleman interposed with a rather slow reaction to a point I left some minutes ago.

Mr. Marten: rose—

Mr. John: No, I shall not give way again at this stage. I shall not give way on this issue. I am dealing with the second of three comments that I want to make on the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not revealed in these first exchanges that it will be highly unsatisfactory to the House if there is not a Minister representing the Foreign Office taking part in the debate? Will the Government not be in the position that the proper authoritative answer for statements made by agencies of the European Parliament cannot—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. It appears that there is a Minister from the Foreign Office present, and in any event it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. John: I assure my hon. Friend that I know that this will not be the last we shall hear about these matters. I can assure him that in the Committee stage both the Foreign Office and the Home Office will be represented and will be answering these points. He may want them answered now, but I am the best speaker he has.
I was about to deal—in case right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were following what I was saying instead of culling through the reports of the European Commission and its various agencies—with the second point about the first-past-the-post system. I was saying that in the event of that system being chosen for the mainland, Northern Ireland would have a proportional representation by single transferable vote to take account of the special needs and difficulties there.
Thirdly, we have incorporated within the Bill a formula in Clause 3(2) which would enable the Bill to proceed if, in fact, the system of first-past-the-post were introduced. I know that this caused some problems during the debate in July and a great deal of time was then devoted to its explanation and clarification. I believe that those Members who then queried it seemed to accept the explana-

tion then given, namely, that it is a procedural device that enables us to consider two electoral methods and not to have to withdraw the Bill in the event of the preferred electoral method being defeated upon a vote in this House. In other words, it is something which facilitates the due progress of the Bill rather than hinders it. As I have said, there may be certain further points of detail upon that, but I believe that my right hon. Friend will answer those again at the end of the debate.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As a resolution of the House would be required to put into effect the first-past-the-post system, if that were the decision of the House, can the Minister say that not a long period would elapse between the completion of our consideration of the Bill and the bringing forward by the Government of a resolution which could bring the first-past-the-post system into operation? It would be quite intolerable if the House decided on the first-past-the-post system and there were then to be a delay which the Government blamed on the House because they had not brought forward the resolution.

Mr. John: Although I know that he followed the exchanges closely in July, the hon. Gentleman still has not understood that the effect of the choice, even if it were the first-past-the-post system, would be to delete Clause 3(2) completely so that the Bill could proceed duly. It would not need the mechanism under Clause 3(2) and therefore would not need the resolution of the House. It is purely a procedural device in order to get the two systems considered, the choice—which is the choice of the House—made, and the Bill proceeded with accordingly.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: If Clause 3(2) remains, there still has to be a resolution. If Clause 3(1), which is the regional list system, goes out, Clause 3(2) still requires the resolution of the House and Schedule 2, surely.

Mr. John: That will then be amended at that time. That is the point that I am seeking to make to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
There are some minor changes in the Bill. Some of these, including those in


Clauses 12 and 14, are merely drafting improvements. There are some that are more substantial although still of minor significance, which provide for what happens in the event of the death of a candidate and for arrangements for application for postal votes.
In conclusion, I do not pretend that any of the changes are significant. It is the same Bill as that to which the House gave its assent in July. Though I respect the fears which many express about the Bill, I cannot share them. I believe that, given the decision to enter Europe, an elected Assembly using its present powers will represent a considerable improvement on one of the weaknesses which I for one certainly criticised in the European Economic Community referendum, namely, the absence of democratic control over the Commission. The letter of the Prime Minister has outlined ways of tackling the other weaknesses which are certainly admitted still to be there.
In advocating that the House give the Bill a Second Reading—

Mr. Paul Channon: rose—

Mr. John: No, I shall not give way at this very late stage. The result of interventions now is that other Members cannot speak. There is a winding-up speech during which other points can be taken up.
What I would ask the House to do in giving this Bill a Second Reading is to take a single but in my view a significant step towards democratic control of the bureaucratic apparatus of the Commission. In that way I believe that advantage will result for all of us.

Mr. Channon: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been given a very clear impression that the Minister has sat down.
I have been asked by Mr. Speaker to announce that the amendment has not been selected.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has

signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Pensioners Payments Act 1977
2. Aberdeen Shoemakers Incorporation Order Confirmation Act 1977
3. City of Glasgow District Council Order Confirmation Act 1977.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I can put the Minister of State's mind at rest on one matter—tha he and his Government will not be accused of having rushed this Bill through. They will not be accused of snap decisions. Quite the reverse.
A recital of the history of the Bill makes very sorry reading for the Government and a complete mockery of their claims for urgency now. It also provides proof to our partners in Europe that if Britain fails to meet the target date for direct elections in May-June 1978 the blame will lie entirely on the Government. They will, of course, try to evade their responsibility and, as is their wont, they will blame others for their own failings. But I intend to put the facts accurately on the record.
Fourteen months ago, in September 1976, along with the other Heads of Government in the EEC, the Prime Minister undertook to use his Government's best endeavours to hold direct elections to the European Assembly in May-June 1978. Clearly, at that moment the Prime Minister intended to be as good as his word. In any event, preparations for the necessary Bill must already have been well advanced.
In May 1976, a Select Committee was set up under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) to study direct elections to the European Assembly. The Committee produced three reports full of detailed recommendations. It proposed that a very early Bill should be introduced in the overspill of the 1976 Session and that the elections should be held on the first-past-the-post system. Therefore, there can be no doubt that when the Prime Minister gave his undertaking planning for the drafting of


a Bill was already well advanced. Accordingly, its introduction was announced in the Queen's Speech in 1976.
We now know that, once a major political decision had been taken on the system of election, the Bill was neither particularly long nor difficult to draft. Given the necessary ministerial agreement on the principle, it could easily have been ready for introduction before Christmas 1976. But, of course, there was no such ministerial agreement. Instead, there was strong opposition to the introduction of any Bill at all, which led to procrastination—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] —I am glad to have the support of hon. Gentlemen—and delay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am simply pointing out that the Government, who procrastinated and delayed, certainly at the wish of their own supporters, have no right now to come along and tell Parliament "You have got to pass it all very urgently. It has nothing to do with us if we fail to meet the target date in 1978." The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that he is going to try to blame other people if we do not meet the target date in 1978. That is what I will not allow him to do.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not in my winding-up speech tonight.

Mr. Whitelaw: It may not be, but it can be done afterwards by the right hon. Gentleman or his publicity machine. I know that very well.
Instead of the Bill, we eventually had a White Paper produced as an alibi for decisive action. The White Paper raised again the issues which had been considered by the Select Committee, on which it based its recommendations. Even so, by the time that the White Paper was debated in April this year the Home Secretary could say only that much thought would be needed before legislation. But the Select Committee had already done all the thinking. I suspect that when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement a draft Bill was, already in the pigeonholes of the Home Office.
Thereafter, despite constant promptings from the Opposition, the delay continued to the accompaniment of leaks about ministerial disagreements. Finally, at the

end of June, the Bill appeared, appropriately with a delightful Freudian slip which read
Presented by Mr. Secretary Ross",
who had, in fact, left the Government some 14 months earlier. Even then, the Bill did not attempt to set out a clear decision on the vital issue of the system of election but, in a most unsatisfactory way, incorporated two alternative systems.
Of course, this constitutional monstrosity could easily have been avoided if the Government had agreed to the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that the House should be asked to vote on the Select Committee's recommendation for an election on the first-past-the-post system. If that system had been adopted by a majority of the House, it could have been inserted in the Bill. If not, the Bill could have included—without an alternative—the regional list system of proportional representation and, of course, much time would have been saved. As it was, in July the House entered upon the charade of a Second Reading debate of a Bill which could not have got through in the Session and with which the Government had absolutely no intention of proceeding anyway.
Just to complete the absurd farce, the Second Reading of the Bill was actually opposed in the Lobby by six Cabinet Ministers and 26 Ministers, showing how little they were prepared to help the Prime Minister in his best endeavours. The substantial majority of 247 in the Bill's favour was entirely due to the strong support of the Opposition in honouring a commitment to our European partners.
With that history behind him, the Prime Minister had the effrontery to suggest that time now precludes the House from exercising the option on the system of election if the target date is to be met. There is now even talk of an early timetable motion.
The disreputable tactics are laid bare. The Prime Minister will say to his colleagues in Europe "I used my best endeavours, but, of course, the House of Commons denied me the necessary Bill in time." The right hon. Gentleman will then go on to say that it was really the fault of the wicked Tories and of those who wished to exercise a perfectly proper option on the system of election.

Mr. Lee: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets his blood pressure worked up any further, will he answer a question? He alluded, in passing, to the question of a timetable motion. In view of the Conservative Party's well-known aversion to timetable motions, which was well and truly demonstrated in the course of the two devolution Bills, may we have an assurance that, if by any chance a timetable motion were introduced in respect of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would oppose it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was not aware that my blood pressure has risen. But, if that had happened it certainly would not rise again sufficiently to tempt me to answer a totally hypothetical question.
The facts which I have accurately set out expose the Government's assertion for the complete nonsense that it is. Parliament, presented with a constitutional Bill of considerable importance a year later than necessary, must be allowed a genuine choice on an electoral system and a reasonable time for debate. The Government's handling of the Bill and their disreputable tactics need not distract us from the principle behind the Bill.
I support the Bill for two main reasons. First, Britain is a member of the EEC and our membership was endorsed overwhelmingly by a referendum of the British people. We and our partners, through our Heads of Government, agreed that there should be direct elections to a European Assembly, if possible in May or June 1978. I believe that we shall gain more from our membership of the Community and contribute more to it if we enter wholeheartedly into the working of its institutions.
If we were now to draw back from an agreement entered into by our Prime Minister, and if we so frustrated a development supported by all our partners, we should add to the doubts—already too strong—about the genuineness of our commitment to Europe. Surely half-hearted membership and half-hearted acceptance by our partners is certain to give us the worst of every world.
Secondly, it is important for the future of the Community that the European Assembly exercises effective democratic scrutiny over the Commission—and I would say to the Minister of State that

"scruntiny" is the correct world, not "control". There is an important difference between the two. I am convinced that an Assembly composed of delegates from their own national Parliaments will not in the long run succeed in this task. We have already experienced the serious results of the pressures placed on those of our colleagues who seek to serve their constituents in this Parliament and also play their part in the European Assembly.
I know that there are those who will counter these arguments with the view that direct elections to the European Assembly must inevitably lead to a federal Europe. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that, though we may disagree profoundly on this issue, as we have done throughout, I personally am as totally opposed to a federal Europe as he and those who think like him are. But, frankly, I fail to follow the logic of their argument. Surely, there will only be a move towards a federal Europe if that is the unanimous wish of the member States of the Community. I can see no evidence of any such desire on the part of the powerful leaders in the Community today.
But one important point arises here, and it was referred to by the Minister of State. It concerns the question of any change in the powers of the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Opposition agreed with the words of the Prime Minister in his letter to Mr. Ron Hayward. If the Prime Minister was referring to any increase in powers of the Assembly at the expense of national Governments and national Parliaments, most emphatically and with respect I entirely agree with him. But it follows from that that we have to go further than the Minister of State did in describing the Bill.
We must know exactly what the Bill will do and where we stand under previous legislation and this legislation. I do not imagine that anyone is suggesting that we should have another Act of Parliament if the Assembly wished simply to change some of its own procedures. On the other hand, if it were minded to increase its powers at the expense of national Governments or Parliaments, it is unthinkable to anyone that such a change could happen, or could be allowed, without an Act of Parliament


in this House. I should have thought that that was undoubted. If that is the case, it may have to be written into the Bill to make sure that it is so. We ought to know how it will be done and whether, if it be necessary, the Government will introduce a new clause to that effect. No one imagines that it could be otherwise. We simply wish to have it made perfectly clear during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that crucial point, may I say to him that not all of us take the narrowly legalistic view that he and the Minister of State have expressed on this point. If it were to be the case that the Governments of Europe, backed by their Parliaments, were willing to confer upon the European Community greater powers to meet the new challenges that lie ahead of us, that would certainly be an accretion of power to the Community and one that the various Parliaments would have assented to. There is this difference: that if, dynamically, that happens, I hope that our party will support it, even though legally and precisely my right hon. Friend may be right in respect of the powers in the Bill.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands my purpose. I was not seeking to be narrow or legalistic in the matter. If I did not explain myself properly to my hon. Friend, let me try again. If such circumstances as he outlines should arise, making a very clear increase in powers of the Assembly at the expense of national Parliaments and Governments, surely neither he nor anyone else is suggesting that that should not be done by an Act of Parliament here. That is really what I am suggesting, and I should have thought that that was an inevitable fact of life.
I am not saying that a change in the procedures of the Assembly would be something which would affect national Governments or Parliaments, and I should have thought that present procedures were perfectly adequate. But if I we were to go further, to the distance to which my hon. Friend referred, I would have thought that an Act of the House of Commons was inevitable. I cannot see how it could be otherwise.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Perhaps I may invite my right hon. Friend to supple-

ment his reply to my hon. Friend by drawing attention to Article 236 of the Treaty. Any increase in powers of any institution of the Community requires an amendment of the Treaty. That, under Article 236, requires ratification not only by this country but by each of the nine member States according to their constitutional requirements. I think that that makes the position clear.

Mr. Marten: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unusual to interrupt before there is a reply.

Mr. Whitelaw: I just say "Thank you" to my right hon. and learned Friend. He knows so much more about it than I do that I should not wish to do more than that.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and particularly for what he has said about writing this into the Bill. The reason why many of us like what he has just said is that we fear that under the existing European Communities Act, Section 1 or 2, some extra power might be rustled through under a regulation at midnight with very few Members here. But this makes assurance doubly sure, and I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.

Mr. Whitelaw: I now turn to the system of elections. The Minister raises slightly the hackles of an old Chief Whip when he says, grandly, that there will be a free vote in the House of Commons. Frankly, it is not for him to say whether there will be a free vote in the House of Commons. It is a matter for his right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip and for the Opposition Chief Whip. I have it on the authority of my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip that we in the Conservative Party will have a free vote on this ocasion. That, perhaps, will answer the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) as well.

Mr. John: I have it on the authority of the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that that is so on our side.

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I must try to get on. but as the hon. Member for Birmingham,


Handsworth (Mr. Lee) referred to this before I shall allow him to do it again.

Mr. Lee: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get on. I want to get this clear. Am I to understand that the Conservative Party is to have a free vote on the guillotine?

Mr. Whitelaw: Oh, dear! It can only be that my voice is a good deal softer than is normally the case. If I have failed to penetrate the hon. Gentleman's ears with the phrase "I now turn to the system of elections", on which my subsequent remarks were based, I can only be sorry and, though I do not think it would be the desire of the House, I shall speak a little louder in future.
I must point out to the House that the Government have already missed one simple opportunity to have a decision on the system of election at the earliest possible moment. I still hope that they will seek to do that as soon as they can.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, of course.

Mr. Steel: I do not see why there should be any "of course" about it, but I am grateful. I respond to the right hon. Gentleman's politeness.
He was making the point earlier, and he has returned to it, that what he is really saying is that the Government should have decided or asked the House to decide on the method of the election before we had decided on whether we would have elections at all. As he earlier has refused to answer hypothetical questions about how we all vote on certain things, what an impossible position that would have made for the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think so, because, after all, it was well announced in advance that we were seeking to meet the target date and that the Prime Minister would use his best endeavours. Therefore, the Government were announcing a Bill on direct elections. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Select Committee of the House was set up to consider the question of direct elections. I was suggesting that when the Select Committee had reported, including reporting

on the system that might be adopted, the House should move to consideration of the report and a vote on it. That was a reasonable proposition. However, the House did not do that, and now—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: What is the matter with the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What my hon. Friend was saying was that, even if we had voted, when we came to the Bill itself we could not have bound the House before the matter was debated.

Mr. Whitelaw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member will allow me to intervene for a moment. It is unfair of the House to trespass on the innate kindness of the right hon. Member, who always gives way. I know that he wants to get on with his speech, and he ought to be allowed to do so.

Mr. Whitelaw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if the House had made such a decision, at least there would have been a reasonable presumption. It would have been sufficient to put the system which they had supported into the Bill as the main system, without another alternative, as has been done in the present circumstances. I should have thought that that was a sensible proposition.
After all, if the House had decided on a first-past-the-post system in voting on the Select Committee's report, there is at least a good likelihood—I should not go so far as to say a presumption—that it would vote the same way on the next occasion, although I could never be sure of that. However, the Government did not do that, so I return to the whole question of the system of elections.
I want to make one major point about this. I do not accept that the choice of the system will make nearly as much difference in regard to meeting the target date for elections as the Minister of State on this occasion and the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions have said. I wish to make clear why I believe that to be so.
First, I am certain that the difficulties of settling constituency boundaries for a


first-past-the-post system have been greatly exaggerated. I understand some of the points that have been made by the Minister of State and the right hon. Gentleman, but I still maintain that some of the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) would provide the basis for a sensible discussion of constituency boundaries.
However, I think that the next point is much more important. The Minister of State said that the boundaries under the regional list system are secured in the Bill. That is an interesting point. Does that mean that the boundaries are automatically acceptable as they stand and that there cannot be any arguments on or amendments to them? I cannot see how that can be the case.
Let me give an example. The composition of the South-East Region of England to include Hampshire, Kent, Oxfordshire and the Isle of Wight will lead to considerable controversy and discussion. The hon. Gentleman and others delude themselves if they do not accept that to be a fact. Nor, indeed, must I leave the hon. Gentleman and the Government in any doubt. I might fight a lone battle, but I do not think so. As a Cumbrian Member of Parliament, I do not accept for one second the idea of Cumbria being included, for this purpose, or, indeed, for most other purposes, in the North of England. I should much prefer to be in the North-West, and I have said so on many occasions. I am entitled to my view, just as any other Member of Parliament is entitled to his, and I shall continue to argue it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Best endeavours.

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. I am just pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not believe that the method of a regional list system is all that much easier than first past the post. I am surprised that the Government pin so much of their argument in favour of the regional list system on the speed of that system. I do not think that that is the case.
To sum up, now that the Bill has been delayed for so long by the Government's failures and vacillations I cannot accept that a decision in favour of a

regional list system will automatically enable us to meet the target date or that a decision favouring first past the post will inevitably mean delay. But, whatever the rights and wrongs of that argument, the Government, after all their own delays, owe it to Parliament to give us a free and unfettered choice on the system of election. Therefore, we should make up our minds about our view of the best system of election on the merits of the case rather than in response to what I fear is in danger of becoming a bogus ultimatum.
Tonight, we are deciding on the principle of the Bill. I maintain that the effective functioning of the EEC will depend on a European Assembly which has some effective scrutiny of the bureaucratic functioning of the Commission. Of course, Heads of Government and the Council of Ministers, answerable to their own national Parliaments, have the final and overriding responsibility. But a democratic check on the Commission must be in the interests of the member States. Only a directly-elected Assembly can effectively provide that, as the years of working under the delegated Member arrangements have proved.
We in the Conservative Party have consistently supported the cause of a strong and prosperous European Community. A vote in favour of the principle of this Bill will show that we are standing firm by that conviction. Therefore, whatever may be the double standards and muddle of the Government, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give overwhelming support to the Bill in the Lobby tonight.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister of State was justified in saying that, as a constitutional measure of the utmost importance, the Bill deserves the protracted attention of this House. We have already learned in other contexts the punishment which attends upon passage of legislation of a constitutional character without the opportunity to consider the implications maturely in the form of a Bill, because those implications often do not appear at first sight or, indeed, until this House has gained a considerable acquaintance with the nature of what is proposed.
We have the advantage from previous debates that the House approaches this


decision with the full knowledge that it is sovereign in the matter. I hope that I can use that word, at least in this context, without arousing controversy. It has been made clear that, although Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome envisages an Assembly directly elected, it is not that Assembly thus envisaged which is proposed in this Bill. Whatever view may be taken of the implications of Section 138—in the last resort, those implications can be decided only politically and not legally—we are not here bound to what is proposed in the Bill either by the referendum result or by our adherence to the Treaty.
What is proposed in the Bill is admitted on all hands to be a step agreed upon in the European Council by the Heads of State, but by the Government of this country expressly ad referendum to this House, whose sovereignty in the matter was admitted repeatedly by the Prime Minister himself to be untrammelled; and there can be no question but that that has been made clear to our colleagues in the European Community.
At all the stages of this discussion, much has been heard about a federal Europe, about whether this is a step towards a federal Europe, about whether those who oppose it are opponents of federalism while those who urge it desire a federal Europe. I believe that these words "federal" and "federalism" are rather unfortunate in speaking of the way in which the Community may develop under the Treaty of Rome, for it is quite clear from the nature of that Treaty that it will not develop into a federation in the sense of a State whose component parts have vested, guaranteed, inherent rights assured to them under the constitution. The intention of the Treaty of Rome, as writ large in the Treaty and declared by those who created it and those who sustain it, is political union in Europe. I will not sharpen that into "a unitary State"; but we all understand quite clearly what is meant, and it is something which, by its nature, is inconsistent with—in the terms of the Prime Minister—"the preservation of the rights of national Governments and Parliaments."
The question to which we should address ourselves is the relationship of

this measure to political unification in the European Economic Community.
It seems to me that those who argue that question in terms of the future, as if it were a matter of speculation, have failed to understand the implication of direct elections. This Bill is itself a declaration that the European Community not only is intended to be, but is already, a political unit. Unless that is so, and unless that is intended, there is no possible meaning or justification of direct elections.
At present those who go to the European Assembly upon the nomination of this House go as representatives of the United Kingdom. They go as national representatives and they sit there along-side other representatives of their respective nations and national Parliaments.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. Member agree that hon. Members who go to the European Assembly do not go only as persons nominated by this House, but as representatives of the parties in this House?

Mr. Powell: The point that I am making is not in the least degree affected by that. Those who sit here as representatives of our constituencies also sit here as representatives of our respective parties, and we only get elected—or most of us do—because of the party connotation under which we present ourselves to our electorate. Similarly, those who, if this Bill passes, will go to the directly elected Assembly will not go as representatives of or from the United Kingdom, but as representatives of or from their respective constituencies, and they will sit in the European Parliament alongside the representatives of constituencies in all the other component States of the Community to take decisions by majority vote.
There is only one meaning and only one sense in an Assembly derived from the electorate of the entire Community which takes its decisions by majority vote: that is, that the electorate is an entity, not the sum of the national electorates of the respective States, but the electorate of the Community, just as it is the electorate of the United Kingdom which forms the basis of this House.
If that were not so, if this were still to be an Assembly of national representatives, there would be no point whatever in their behaving as a democratic


Assembly arriving at its decisions by a majority vote.
So if we pass this Bill and agree to participate in a directly elected Assembly, we shall have confirmed on behalf of the United Kingdom that we accept the political unity of the EEC as a real and living fact. As soon as the decision is taken, that implication, however obscure or difficult it may appear at the moment, will immediately become as clear as daylight, and we shall be told on all hands that we must have understood what we were doing, and that the very fact of our agreeing to direct elections was a confirmation of the will to political union on the part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
From that deduction it would follow that we would be morally and logically committed to follow through the consequences of political union. If we take this step, we are so committed already. That is why the Minister was justified in calling this a step of the utmost constitutional importance, for by it we recognise our electorate as being no more than a segment of this new State or unit—call it what you will—this political union of the EEC.
We were all interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said about the entrenched limitation of the existing powers of the Community. Certainly it is something to know that these powers, on the undertaking of the Government and the confirmation of the Opposition, will not be formally extended by a simple resolution under Section 1 of the 1972 Act, but will require legislation of this House—full legislation in all its stages, with or without the guillotine. But I would have thought that logic went a step further, and that the action we are taking under this Bill ought to be made conditional upon the existing powers of the Community, so that our safeguard would be, not merely a substitution of a one-clause Bill for a regulation but the necessity for the country to rethink the principle of direct elections itself if they are to be to an Assembly with powers legally extended by treaty.
I inserted that last qualification for a very important reason. We have been told again this afternoon that the Assembly is consultative, supervisory, advisory and the rest. The Assembly,

under the Treaty of Rome, has certain powers as well. One of these is to accept or reject the Community budget. Another is to dismiss the Commission.
I am not sure it is necessary to have any Treaty alteration whatsoever in order for a directly elected Assembly of the Community to obtain powers de facto which are very comparable with those of this House. After all, although there are resolutions and even an occasional Act of Parliament as milestones along the way, from the first resolution during the time of Henry V, from which our financial competence and sovereignty are derived, it was not from resolutions or legislation or concessions obtained by legislation that the powers of this House grew until we became the supreme body of this realm. It came from the very practical consequences of our holding the purse strings and from the necessity of carrying a majority in this House. These are the conventions, growing up over the years, which have subordinated the Executive to this House and, through the House, to those whom we represent.
So we should not talk about the powers of the Assembly in a merely legalistic fashion, deriving them from a superficial interpretation of the Treaty of Rome. We should not flatter ourselves that these powers are circumscribed or limited, and that they will remain exactly as they are at present unless and until we and eight other Parliaments decide otherwise. It will not be so. The moment that the right to reject the budget or to dismiss the Commission is in the hands of those who sit in the Assembly by the same right as we sit here, it will be found that those are very far-reaching powers indeed. It will be found that the Assembly has become a body which the Commission will have to obey—whatever the forms under which it obeys—and it will be a body which the Council of Ministers will be unable to defy.
The Prime Minister talked of "the rights of national Governments and Parliaments." What are the rights of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom? They are the rights which are derived from representation in this House. They are the rights of speaking for the United Kingdom which we here confer. Those are the rights of the Government of this country. But if this Bill ever passes, those rights will be


critically diminished. After this Bill is passed, it will not be we in this House, the national Parliament, who, on matters concerning the EEC, will confer a mandate or give the authority to the Government Front Bench.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It will be the people.

Mr. Powell: Yes, it will be the people, but the people of the United Kingdom as a small segment, a small minority, of the totality of the people of the European Economic Community. Therefore, I hope that I have the hon. Gentleman with me and against the Prime Minister, presumably, in my assertion that the rights of this national Parliament and this national Government will be ipso facto critically diminished by direct elections.
In the last resort we should not decide this question on any narrow consideration either because we have been boxed in by past actions or votes or because we imagine that the consequences of what we are doing can be limited by formal undertakings or provisions which may be introduced into this Bill. We can only properly answer this question according to whether we individually in our hearts still wish to retain the rights of the Government and Parliament of this country.
Our vote is about nothing less than that, about the continued existence of the United Kingdom as a politically independent nation. Indeed, it will be for or against United Kingdom nationhood itself. We should fall below ourselves if we were to decide this question on any narrower basis.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), to whom we listen with great respect, began by arguing that we were not under any obligation to the Community to pass this Bill and that this House retained its own sovereignty. That is not in dispute because we have the power to say yes or no. But it is also indisputable that any nation which signed the Treaty of Rome and entered the Community knew that the relevant clauses in the treaty envisaged beyond doubt a directly elected Parliament. If the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman about the consequences of a directly

elected Parliament are correct, they would have been as clear to people then as they are now.
I know that it was left to be agreed among the nations concerned what the form of election would be, but I say again, as I have said in earlier debates, that for any nation to enter the Community and to sign the treaty and then to say "We will be not only particular about the form of direct elections but will set ourselves to oppose any kind of direct elections" would be a piece of sharp practice. It would be entering into a commitment which one had no intention of concluding.
One must accept that there is undoubtedly a moral obligation to be co-operative towards direct elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, because that follows from membership of the Community. We are all entitled to our opinion. Those who now shout "No" have not been all that infallible in the past.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have in my hand the "Yes" case for the referendum and the Government White Paper published at that time. Will my right hon. Friend say where one finds reference to any obligation to direct elections in either document?

Mr. Stewart: No. there is not one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Any hon. Member who takes the trouble to read the Treaty of Rome will find this in Article 138. Moreover, at every meeting I have addressed I have referred to the question of direct elections. I think that generally the audience thought that direct elections were a good idea. I mentioned this when I was able to make myself heard over the organised rowdies who were sometimes to be found on the other side.

Mr. Spearing: Cheap.

Mr. Stewart: It was time that these points were made clear. We who believe in the European concept have had to put up with every kind of abuse including charges of bad faith. There are a number of things to be said on the other side.
We are under a moral obligation to co-operate with Europe in a directly-elected Assembly. Europe has been discussing this matter for years. We cannot go on


for ever saying that we can find a better way of handling the matter. A convention has been worked out which has satisfied all the Governments of the Nine. It has satisfied one Parliament after another in those countries.
I took the right hon. Gentleman's further point to be that direct elections must inevitably lead to a union of Europe and to Britain becoming part of the European State, whether that State be unitary or federal. I do not believe that is so. The point has been made and not controverted that one should not increase the powers of the Community as against the powers of national Governments without seeking to alter the treaty, which requires the assent of the Parliaments of the Nine. One can get nine countries to work in closer and closer agreement on many matters and that is what the Community is now doing. It is not a federation or a union, but a community. It is a new animal in the political sense.
Many of the arguments people try to adduce from earlier political forms do not apply today. A group of nine sovereign nations have agreed to act together more closely than nine nations have ever agreed to do before. But one cannot slip into a federation unaware. A decision by a country to cease to be a sovereign State and become part of a larger State, whether unitary or federal is a decision which cannot be made inadvertently. On those occasions when it has been done it has been done deliberately and with the eyes open. It is rarely done in history, but when it is done it must be done in full knowledge. Any idea that by passing this Bill we shall find ourselves on a slippery slope that will land us in a position where we have lost our sovereignty without knowing it will not stand up. It does not make sense.
I think that the time will come when the nations of Western Europe will be one State, but I do not expect to live to see it. I think that in the end it would be a desirable development, but it cannot come about until the people of Western Europe have the definite will to that end. If they have the will, they will pass the necessary legislation, but that will be a decision that they will make and a distinctly different decision from that which we are making today. Therefore, the idea that we are opening the door to

federation or a unitary State by passing this Bill is bogus. It will not stand up logically or historically.
Let me concede this to those who are worried about Europe becoming more and more united. Anyone who considers the history of Europe in this century might be glad to see that. However, if we have a directly-elected Parliament the public will be able to see their own European candidate and vote for or against him. The public will become more aware of the nature and working of the Community, and that will make the public more willing to consider closer co-operation between the European States. It might not be so It might be—as some of my hon. Friends argue—that the more that the public sees of the Community the less it will like it, but I doubt that. To that extent, we may be moving towards closer union because the election campaigns, through their effect on public opinion, will make us more European-minded and nobody could possibly object to that. If that is the way that people react, and if they want closer co-operation with other European countries, they are entitled to have it. I am prepared to wait upon the issue.
Direct elections will help people to understand Europe better and to want closer European co-operation. I am glad to see that we are at last embarked upon a Bill that can get us there. The Government have taken a long time. The Minister said today that it was now difficult to say anything new on this subject. However, I understand that the Home Secretary is to reply to the debate tonight and there is one new thing that he could say. He could answer the question that I have put four times and to which I have not yet received an answer. It is an extremely simple question.
If we were to choose the first-past-the-post system, would it be possible for elections to be held in May or June 1978? Something that the Prime Minister said recently gave us to understand that the answer to that question might be "No", but we should like to hear that stated categorically. Will the Home Secretary also not make his answer just a catalogue of so many weeks to do this and that, because nobody can be sure of the date from which he has started? Will he answer the perfectly simple question


whether, in his judgment, it will be possible to hold elections in May or June 1978 if we adopt the first-past-the-post system? That is a legitimate question.
Some people do not like proportional representation or direct elections. They will have no difficulty. They will vote for the first-past-the-post system because they will hope that that will delay the elections. Those who like both proportional representation and the idea of European elections will vote for proportional representation. Many people, like me, who do not like proportional representation but who are much concerned about the evil results of delay are entitled to know where we stand. I hope that at this fifth time of asking the Home Secretary will answer.
One reason for direct elections is to enable the work of European Members to be done properly. While I was a European Member I did the best that I could. I greatly admire the work that was done by my hon. Friends who were European Members as well as by those from the other place who had the advantage of not having the distractions that we have in carrying out their European duties. However, it is a great burden to be a representative here and in Europe and to do the work as it should be done.
I now come to the matter of increased powers for the Assembly. One thing is certain, and that is that the Assembly's influence will be increased by direct elections simply because Members there will be able to devote the whole of their energies to the job, in the way that the present representative in two Parliaments cannot possibly do. We shall find entering the European Parliament people who will be considerable figures in European public life. The Commission and the Council of Ministers will not be able to brush them off.
That will be a valuable development because there are two respects in which the directly-elected representative can inject into the Community something that is badly wanted. One is a measure of common sense. That would be an antidote to the tendency towards harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. That is a malady that is always likely to afflict the staff of the Commission. The concept, for example, of European beer has

now been abandoned, and not long ago there was a burning-up of several unnecessary projects. There are some people who, if one mentions any subject in the world to them, feel that we must discuss the European dimension. That is why sometimes the Commission in Brussels is overloaded with too many projects at once.
An hon. Member knows how the public feel and that sort of thing tends to make him impatient, to make him want to cut away unnecessary stuff and concentrate on essentials. Many of us have been saying that for some time. Directly-elected Members in Europe will be able to say that with greater force and emphasis.
The other matter in which there will be an improvement will be in the representation of the interests of consumers. The Commission, almost by its nature, is besieged by particular pressure groups, usually groups of producers. The same is true of Governments. It is true that democratic Governments are elected, but any Government is inclined to be worried about what it must do to deal with impressive lobbies of producers. The individual hon. Member is much more likely to voice the view of the consumer because he has to appeal to people as citizens, not merely as producers.
This will be even more true in the larger constituencies of the European Parliament because, although some constituencies that return hon. Members to this House are associated almost entirely with one industry or group of producers, the same cannot be true of the larger constituencies of the European Assembly. No one producer's interest could dominate such an election, and the man who wants to win the favour of the public will have to speak to them as citizens. The public may produce all sorts of things, but it is entirely made up of consumers who are interested in prices, in avoiding monopolies, in the proper description of goods and value for money. That is an interest that has never yet spoken loudly enough in the Community—although I am glad that, thanks to some of my hon. Friends, we can claim credit for having managed to make that voice louder in recent years. Directly-elected Members, with the time and energy that they can give to their work, will be able to inject the consumers' voice into the Community.
I return to a point that was made earlier and that is the effect of holding an election. Our country is still far too insular. That is a point that one notices when one comes into contact with European colleagues. We are still far too inclined to think that we know the right answers to everything. The younger generation is less subject to that fault than the older one, but when Europe is discussed on election platforms and when the best way of looking after British interests in Europe is considered—and that does not simply mean digging our heels in and making the hardest bargains that we can—that will involve considering how to get on good terms of understanding with our fellow Europeans. That will introduce into our politics a better-informed, larger and more generous dimension. For that reason, and the many others that I have mentioned, I shall support the Bill tonight.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) has, as always, made a most interesting speech. However, it became confusing when he mentioned Members of Parliament because it was difficult to understand whether he meant Members here or there. As the Bill is concerned with the European Assembly, could we please refer to Members in Europe as Members of the Assembly rather than as Members of Parliament? That would help clarity.

Mr. Stewart: I must admit that I sometimes used the phrase "Member of Parliament" when I should have said "Member of the Assembly", but it was clear from the context which I was referring to.

Mr. Marten: No, it was not.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: I start by congratulating the Leader of the House on bringing forward this debate immediately after the five days that we have spent debating devolution. In that time we have talked about what will happen if we devolve powers from this Parliament to a subordinate Assembly. Now, we are talking about giving powers to an external Assembly.
Nothing has been more interesting than the diversity of view that has emerged in the devolution debates on where devolution will lead. Some believe that it will

lead to separatism; others that it is the only way to preserve the integrity of the country. Some see it as the first step towards a federal solution. The prospect of involvement in an external Assembly is even more obscure. We have far fewer precedents to guide us than we have with devolution. We cannot tell whether it will lead to federation, confederation, union, or some other system.
In my judgment, there are imperatives which lead us to take the step proposed in the Bill. When I first joined the European Movement on its foundation in 1946, I was a great believer in what later came to be called a Europe of States. I would like to say why. At that time, the old British Commonwealth, with the later addition of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, seemed an extremely effective political force in the world, even though it was based only on intergovernmental operations.
Yet when I look back, I wonder whether the Commonwealth system might not have endured a good deal longer if there had been a Commonwealth Assembly of some kind. Of course, we had the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, with delegations from Commonwealth Parliaments, but if we had had an elected Commonwealth Assembly, would we not have created on a broader base that Commonwealth patriotism which existed only among a fairly élite section of all the Commonwealth countries?
Since then, we have had the Europe of States, that I wanted to see for some years, and it has been a great disappointment. There have been great crises in East-West relations, in the Middle East and Southern Africa, and there has been the world recession. But we have to confess that, whatever solutions we should like to have seen to these problems, the voice of Europe has counted for very little. As I go on my travels, whether in America, the Middle East or the Far East, I am conscious of the impotence of the nation-State of Britain and the indifference that most people have for the opinions of the European Community which are not clear and are not made manifest.
Is it possible to correct this? We have to ask ourselves—what is an Assembly? It has a double function. One is to scrutinise the executive actions of the


Council of Ministers and the Commission, but that is not the most important function. I have been in the House for nearly 25 years and I judge that what we have done in the scrutiny of legislation has been less important than what we have done in the expression of opinion in expressing the opinions of the public whom we represent or m the leadership that we have given to public opinion.
The most important function of an Assembly is to express and lead opinion. However restricted the powers of the European Assembly may be, it can play a very important part in the formation of opinion.
There is not in the mass of our people or in the mass of people in any European country the European patriotisrn that is necessary if Europe is to emerge—in a confederal, federal, inter-State, Union or any other system—as a coherent force in a world dominated by super-Powers.
I do not believe that we can any longer create this European patriotism simply by agreement between Governments. That could be done in the age of princes and the strong Governments that we knew even between the wars; but today we have to carry the people with us, and I do not see how this is to be done except by direct elections that bring the man in-the-street into direct contact with the conduct of European affairs and make him think as a European.
Joseph Chamberlain, of whom the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I have recently written, once said that he wanted his countrymen to "think imperially". We now want them to think not just as British subjects but as Europeans. I can think of no other way of bringing this about than by having them cast votes for a European Assembly candidate who will be answerable to them and will be able to educate them and tell them about the problems facing that Assembly.
The system of election is a secondary consideration; but I believe that we would be wise, at the outset, to use the first-past-the-post system that we know. This is what the country understands, and the process of conversion to proportional representation, even if it were right—I have grave doubts about that—would be something new for people to understand.
Another reason in favour of the first-past-the-post system is that it has been quite clear in the House that our views on Europe cut right across parties. There is no Labour Party or Conservative Party view. I am not even sure that there is a Liberal Party view. Candidates must be personally answerable, and not answerable for a non-existent policy of their party. They must be able to justify what they stand for personally.
I return to my original question. Where will all this lead? Nothing is more natural than for politicians, whose tenure of office is limited, to try to anticipate events and impose a pattern on the way that history will develop. But nothing is more foolish than to try to foreclose options that are open and that will grow in their own way.
We are dealing with very ancient nations who are making a conscious and deliberate effort to come together. This is not something to be compared with the 13 colonies of the United States, or the constituent parts of Canada or Australia. This Europe will grow in its own unpredictable way. I suggest that it will develop and leave behind it constitutional forms that are not federal or confederal, but rather something that we do not yet know about, but which, with God's blessing, will give it the strength to help it go on and preserve that European civilisation, which is what we want it to do.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am happy to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). Clearly, we have many differences of view about many of the productions that we wish to see produced on this stage, but I think that we are agreed about the stage on which they should be produced.
The House might well expect my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) to be involved in this debate but, regrettably, he has had to take his son to hospital. I make a personal point on his behalf to obviate any questions that might otherwise have been raised about his absence.
Inevitably, in a short contribution, which it must be because so many hon. Members wish to speak, we are required to make some reference to the logical consequences of Community membership as we see it, but I do not propose to


embark on arguments about the validity of that membership or its continuance. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), to whom I shall refer throughout my speech, stated in the debate on 7th July 1977
So, of course, this is a debate about British membership of the EEC. We cannot help that."—[Official Report, 7th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1479.]
He did not pursue that matter much today, but I say to him "Yes, we can help that." This is not a debate about British membership of the European Community. It is a debate about whether and in what ways we wish to change the characteristics of one of the institutions of the Community of which we are members. Specifically, it is a debate about whether we wish to see representatives from this country who will in future go to the European Assembly or Parliament—I do not want to argue about what it should be called—either nominated by the parties as they are now, or directly elected, and, if they are to be directly elected, how they are to be elected.
The form of the elections is not only the most controversial matter facing us this evening but one which will, I suspect, determine our ability to meet the deadline set out in the agreement of the Council of Ministers and the Government of 20th September 1976. I wish to spend most of my time today on that, but I also feel that on Second Reading it would be wrong not to deal to some degree with the principle of whether we should have direct elections at all. In this regard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) quoted, in the last debate on this subject, on 7th and 8th July 1977, a Labour Party National Executive Committee document, which to me seems to present the most coherent and cogent argument against having direct elections that I have been able to find. Therefore, it is appropriate to quote it.
The hon. Gentleman read the following paragraph:
The fundamental argument against direct elections stems from an opposition to further integration and possible political union within the European Community and a consequent belief that such integration poses a threat to national sovereignty. It therefore follows that the Labour Party should continue the campaign against direct elections as a manifestation and commitment to greater political union."—[Official Report, 7th July 1977: Vol. 934, c. 1469.]

That is the argument as I understand it. The trouble with that argument and my attempt to refute it is that I agree with it. That is the basic problem. I want that to happen and I agree that it would be desirable if it happened. I am not against political union.
There is a second and equal problem, in that this is a variant of the basic argument about being in the Community at all. Some people argue that anything that makes the Community better or progresses it is undesirable. I do not want to pursue that now, because I suspect that it is an increasingly theological argument.
The third point, which was made by the Minister of State at the beginning of the debate, is that the European Assembly or Parliament is an advisory Assembly. It is very important to emphasise this to all those who may be suspicious, doubtful or hesitant about this matter. It is an advisory Assembly and will remain an advisory Assembly, whether or not I want it to remain so, for as long as the Council of Ministers fails to reach unanimous agreement that it should have different powers. I shall return to this in connection with remarks made by the right hon. Member for Down, South. However, that is the situation. Those are the facts, and I ask hon. Members not to omit them.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the hon. Member agree that there is tremendous pressure in the Assembly for majority voting, and that those who are honest and straightforward in their attitude towards direct elections say that one reason why they want direct elections is that they want to move as fast as pussible towards majority voting, so that when directives come before the Assembly they can be accepted in their entirety?

Mr. Johnston: I accept that. But no change in the principles of the operation of the existing rules can be undertaken without the unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: rose—

Mr. Johnston: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, because I know that Mr. Speaker has asked for short speeches.

Mr. Dykes: I agree that the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it would be impossible to have additional powers without the unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers. Does he agree that it needs only one of the member States to produce a clause opposing the granting of such powers, as the French have done, for there to be full protection and a double protection against their being given without a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Johnston: I had intended to refer to the French situation and the French constitution, but I no longer need to do so. An advisory Assembly concerned to give advice on board policy must base that advice on political considerations, because it will be concerned with the resolution of national claims in a fair fashion. I do not want to make an argument about the EEC, but the basic argument is that one is essentially trying to work out fair solutions to problems that individual countries cannot deal with by themselves. It is a question of whether we do it that way or leave it to jungle competition.
The matter requires the involvement of political interests in an evidently just fashion and of the public at large, which does not happen now, in the knowledge that they can control this exercise of influence, as they do not now. Therefore, they should concern themselves with what happens and knowingly exert pressure. That is the great gap at present. We have Members of the European Parliament—I am one and the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is another—but the public at large barely know what we are doing, however much we may individually try to convey to them that we are there, because we are not directly responsible to them and they do not feel any direct relationship between what we do and what they may wish us to do.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself.

Mr. Johnston: I am speaking for myself—I cannot do otherwise. I am therefore arguing that the Bill will give the British people the opportunity to exercise influence, and an interest in doing so, that they do not at the moment have.
Again I turn to the right hon. Member for Down, South because, if he will per-

mit me, I intend to use him in some degree as a foil. In the debate on 7th July 1977, he said:
Does anyone imagine that 81 persons elected by either of these grotesque methods
—the two methods proposed by the Government—
to form part of an Assembly of 400-odd, possessed of such powers as they have already or may arrogate to themselves and having the oversight of all the matters which come before the Council of Ministers, will secure greater control for the British people than we can exercise in this House, through Ministers, over the decision of the Common Market?—[Official Report, 7th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1479.]
That is the argument that he puts. That is the argument which leads me directly to the question of systems of election.
First, the Parliament has no capacity or ability in any way whatever to arrogate power to itself. That is not possible without the agreement of the Council of Ministers, representing individual Governments. Secondly, if one is talking about the capacity of individual people to exert influence in the increasingly complex world in which live, if they are able to elect persons directly to a European Parliament I contend that this gives them another dimension of influence. To suggest, as the right hon. Member for Down, South appears to do, that they should have influence through Ministers is, in my view, not enough.
The House is faced with two alternative propositions. The first is the regional list, which ensures rough party proportionality, but with individuals at the lower end of the list owing perhaps more to the party itself than to themselves for their election. The second proposition is the traditional first-past-the-post system in 81 huge constituencies.
The arguments against the first-past-the-post system are, first, that it would produce wild distortions of political representation. That point has already been thoroughly made by many hon. Members. Secondly, it would delay the whole exercise. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) argued that, in some way that I must confess I do not quite understand, it was possible quickly to reach agreement on 81 constituencies but that the regions as proposed were highly controversial and in his own experience and


knowledge Penrith and The Border was not in the proper region. I do not think that his argument stands up.
A decision in favour of a regional list would enable us to meet the deadline to which this country, through the Government, is committed—this, after all, is the point that the right hon. Member for Down, South made. To those who say that it does not matter if there is delay, that it does not really matter whether the elections are in May or June 1978, or in October 1978 or in June 1979, I say that it does matter, and that it matters very much. I remember very well when I went as a delegate, a nominate, to the European Parliament in January 1973.

Mr. Marten: Assembly.

Mr. Johnston: I am quite prepared to call it an Assembly if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants me to do. The fact that I am trying to persuade him to my view admittedly shows the triumph of hope over experience. Nevertheless I propose to proceed in my efforts.

Mr. Marten: Call it an Assembly.

Mr. Douglas Hurd (Mid-Oxon): The hon. Gentleman has made a statement which the Prime Minister has refrained from making—that if we accepted the regional list system we would meet the timetable. What assumptions is the hon. Gentleman making about the number of days in Committee on this Bill, the date it goes to the Lords, when it comes back from the Lords, and the date of Royal Assent, given that the Government have refused to give priority to the Bill?

Mr. Johnston: I do not think it appropriate for me to be drawn into these details. I wish to conclude in a short time. If the House were happy that I should speak for an hour, that would be fine, but the House would not be happy. It would not be fair for me to go into such detail.
I will simply say that when I went to the Assembly in 1973, the great thing that struck me was that all the Europeans were saying how wonderful it was that the British were there, because they were bringing a great and long valuable experience of democracy. I cannot emphasise too strongly to those who feel that the national interest is the important thing,

and the only important thing, that the British national interest in the European Community will be severely damaged if Britain is the means of delaying these direct elections.

Mr. Powell: Tell that to the French.

Mr. Johnston: They have agreed already to a national list, and to go ahead with the matter. That is fundamentally important. I personally do not believe that there is such a thing as the national interest in the proper sense of the word. What is it? Is it British Leyland? Is it the textile industry?
It seems to me extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Down, South, who is smiling seraphically or demoniacally behind me, should talk so much in these debates, and will probably do so in the debates ahead, about the national interest and at the same time talk about the United Kingdom national interest in a situation in which we are talking deeply about devolution and the fact that that national interest, even on a geographical basis far less than a sectional basis, is by no means a unified thing.
I think that it is not a question of national interest but of human interest, of what is the fair thing to do. If one thinks in terms solely of national or sectional interest, one is liable to reduce one's chances of getting fair treatment for whatever problems one has.
In turning to the question of the regional list proposition, again I quote from the right hon. Member for Down, South. In his speech on 7th July he said:
There can, I suppose, be nothing more offensive to our whole idea of representation than the notion of voting for a party and not a person.
Later, he said:
They will be elected as a result of a computation of all the votes cast for party candidates. There will therefore be no such nexus as in the very essence of this place, no nexus between the person elected and those who elected him, no ascertainable channel of responsibility."—[Official Report, 7th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1475–6]
I know perfectly well that the theory of this place is that people vote not for parties but for persons. The right hon. Gentleman has properly enunciated this proposal, but the reality that hon. Members know is that the vast majority of the British electorate engaged in the British General Election vote for party


labels, they vote for idiots, dolts and clots—[Interruption.]—because they have the appropriate label hanging round their necks. That shows that, whatever the fine and democratic theory, the majority of people in this country give priority to a furtherance of a broad interest, which is what a party interest is, rather than simply the furtherance of a very good individual. I am sorry, but that is a fact. The right hon. Gentleman may be right on the question of desirability, but what I have just said is a plain fact.
As to the question of nexus and contact, I flatly deny that to be the case. I do not know exactly what happens to other hon. Members in other parties but I should have thought that it is not very different from what happens to me. The hon Member for Walton knows perfectly well about this because I have heard him talking of it. The fact is that if the Liberal Party supports this, that or the next thing, or opposes this, that or the next thing, I, as a Liberal Member of Parliament, am blamed for it, and I take the responsibility. That is a fact, and the idea that there is no nexus, and that there would be no link in the regional context between the party members elected and their responsibility, is really not true at all.
I believe that the regional list gives an opportunity which would not otherwise be provided for fair regional balance and also for fair geographical balance. Last weekend I was at the meeting of the Federation of Liberal Parties in Europe, held in Brussels. I have here a vast number of telegrams on this issue. People should remember that, if the representation from Britain is unbalanced, it affects adversely not only the people in Britain but the whole composition of the European Assembly and the way in which it can effectively represent Europe. I believe that the Bill is about a better Europe, and that this means a better Britain, a better England, a better Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a better hope for all the electorate of the European Community.

Mr. Speaker: We have three hours left before the winding-up speeches. If every speech is as long as the last one, there will be time for only nine more speeches. That would be grossly unfair to the other

16 hon. Members who are hoping to catch my eye. Therefore, I appeal to hon. Members to be brief.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech too closely, although I intend to refer to it in the course of my brief remarks. In deference to your request, Mr. Speaker, I have decided that I shall not deliver the speech that I had in my mind when I entered this Chamber. Instead, I will address my remarks to what has been said already.
It seems to me that the debate so far has centred around the future function of an elected Assembly of the European Communities. There has been a lot of talk, particularly in the early part of the debate, between the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the Assembly's advisory and supervisory powers, its scrutiny, and the way in which its Members may provide information or gain information and perhaps get it from the Commission. In other words, we are talking about interposing between this House and the Council of Ministers an entirely new level of political milieu, just as we have been discussing the same thing for Scotland in regard to the proposed Assembly in Edinburgh. But I submit to the House that the people who go to the European Assembly will not be accountable even in the way in which the proposed Assembly Members in Edinburgh will be, because, while there are duties in the European Assembly, and while Members may make speeches, when it comes in the end to the actual matter of decision-making that will be the duty, I understand, of the Council of Ministers.
Those who talk about democratic control—this includes my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell)—and those who say that we must democratise the Community forget that while the European Assembly may have influence, its de jure power may be limited and may not in fact exist to any great extent.
At this point I refer particularly to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). What the right hon. Gentleman said exposed the


point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. This is also something to which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border had better listen. If he wants some logic, here it is. What the right hon. Member for Down, South was saying, surely, is that power is not necessarily—we as politicians know this—a matter of de jure powers but of de facto facts.
We know how it works in ordinary politics. Very often in the history of this House, as the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, we get our standing orders and our Bills after the political facts are clear. That has been the history of this House over the Executive, and many people hope that that will be the future of the Assembly over the Council. That is why the constitution is written in the manner in which it appears.
It is no good anyone in this House saying that we shall have to pass an Act giving permission for this to happen. That is what we were told about direct elections We were told that it was all right, because the House would have to pass a Bill. Now we are asked to pass it, as the hon. Member for Inverness says, for the reason that if we do not we shall be letting down ourselves and the rest of the Community. That is the way in which the Community operates. It does not operate in the straightforward political way in which we try to operate in this country.
There was mention earlier of money. It may surprise the House to know that the powers of the European Assembly were changed, only on 6th June this year, because Article 203 of the Treaty of Rome has been amended. This will not be found in the Library or in Government offices. I have asked the Minister concerned to send out an amendment to the article and he has not done so. Anyone looking at a copy of Article 203 will probably find that it is the old one, unamended. It has been superseded by virtue of the very power which made this House superior to the Crown and on which the Assembly will try to build its power in future.
We know that clever parliamentarians are able to do this sort of thing, but my complaint is that it was done in a clandestine way. Hon. Members have already

said that we shall have to pass a Bill to let the Assembly have the power. But it does not work like that. How did the Assembly get the extra powers over the budget which it has had since June of this year? How did it go through this House?
Apart from myself and the right hon. Member for Down, South, I do not think that there is a single hon. Member who remembers how it happened. The right hon. Gentleman and I were here late at night on 8th–9th December 1975, when the Order in Council relating to the definition of treaties went through this House. There was no reference in it to the Treaty of Rome. It was not even mentioned in the schedule. It was only possible to know about this by looking at Cmnd. 6252, which set out the
Treaty amending certain Financial Provisions of the Treaties establishing the European Communities.
That Order in Council, which I have in my hand, went through the House. It amends Article 203 of the Treaty of Rome. There are, in fact, two pages of amendments. That is what the Assembly of the European Community will be using in future.
I will not read it out because of the shortage of time, Mr. Speaker, but it is, in effect, a tennis match between the Assembly and the Council as to the powers over the budget. I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) is nodding. In other words, the powers which hon. Members are arguing that we have not got are in fact already there, and the House did not know about it because the way in which the Community works arid gains power is in its very essence clandestine.

Mr. Douglas Jay: By stealth.

Mr. Spearing: By stealth, as my right hon. Friend says.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) was honest in saying that the "Yes" campaign and the Government's own White Paper said nothing about any obligation to direct elections. The clandestine nature of the way in which this very debate, and this so-called moral obligation, has come about is a first-rate example of how the whole things works. If it works like this


in respect of the United Kingdom, it will work like that for the triangle of the Commission, the Council and the Assembly.
The basis for this was in an earlier White Paper—Cmnd 4715. I commend it to Opposition Members. It was published in 1971, during the Administration of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Paragraph 72 describes the membership of the European Parliament and states that
The European Parliament's present role is largely consultative.
We went into the Market by clandestine means. The right hon. Member for Sidcup took us in on a mandate for "negotiation, no more and no less" and with the wholehearted consent of people and Parliament. He did not get the wholehearted consent of the people. That was a clandestine exercise if ever there was one. Unfortunately, my own Government in their renegotiations, and in their misleading White and Blue Paper, did not mention direct elections at all. That is a second clandestine step that we have taken. The third one I have already mentioned.
The Government have been forced to bring this measure before the House because I have no doubt that unless they do then the powers that they have in the Council to get things through and the co-operation which they get from their colleagues in the Community will be to the disadvantage of Britain. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) used the phrase "best endeavours". What he should have said was that the British people did not know about this. He should have said: "I have no mandate. I must put it in front of them." That is what my right hon. Friend should have said, but I am afraid that he did not.
My hon. Friends in the Government are, therefore, on a hook, because they know that unless they produce this proposal and show some willingness, Britain will be disadvantaged. It is the package deal again. That is the way in which the Community works. The clandestine pressures started at the time of the right hon. Member for Sideup and there have been three or four other stages since.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is taking her party into

the "Yes" Lobby tonight on a three-line Whip. They are voting "Yes" for federalism, for a unitary State or for a combination of that. They will be voting "Yes" to taking away the powers of this House that were given to it by the British people. There will be a Tory majority tonight for this Bill.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will forgive me if I do not follow most of his argument, except to say that he makes great play about the fact that during the referendum nothing was said about direct elections. The hon. Gentleman was one of the leading lights of the Keep "Britain Out" campaign. I am certain that during that campaign he emphasised to the people that our staying in Europe would mean direct elections. However, the people did not heed the hon Gentleman's warning and were therefore in favour of having direct elections.
I have the feeling that we have been here before. We had a Second Reading debate on this subject on 7th July this year. That was quite a noteworthy date—7.7.77—and it was quite a noteworthy debate. At the end of the debate the Bill got a Second Reading by a majority of 247, but what might have been forgotten is that half the Parliamentary Labour Party, including six Cabinet Ministers, voted against the Second Reading. That perhaps explains the delay that the Government have experienced in introducing this legislation.
Reference has been made several times about the Prime Minister using his "best endeavours" for the elections to be held by the target date of May-June 1978. That will be difficult, whatever system of election we decide upon, because of the dilatoriness of the Government in giving this measure a higher place in their list of priorities.
I am not as enthusiastic about the Community as certain other of my right hon. and hon. Friends. But I came to the conclusion that there was no viable alternative. To reinforce that view we had a referendum in 1975, although I was unhappy with the idea of having referenda brought into our system of government. We all know that the referendum was the brainchild of the Secretary of State for Energy who


believed that by means of the referendum the British people would opt to leave the Community. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman misjudged the mood of the British people.
Having voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Community I believe that it is our duty to try to do everything to make the Community work. There is a great deal to be explained. The people of this country simply do not understand the absurdities of the CAP and they are baffled when they read in the newspapers of butter mountains and lakes of wine. Surely it makes sense to have democratically elected representatives at the European Assembly, because those representatives will be answerable to the people who elected them? Therefore, I am in favour of direct elections.
But the vital question in this debate is how these elections will actually take place. To discover this, I looked at Clause 3 where we are given a "choice" between the regional list system, which the Government want and which the Liberals regard as second best if they cannot have STV, and the first-past-the-post system which is familiar to every voter in the country. I said that we had a "choice". I use that word in inverted commas, because there has been a subtle propaganda campaign emanating from the Lib-Lab pact that if we want direct elections by the target date of May-June 1978 the regional list system would have to be used.
I personally do not think that we have any chance of having these elections by the target date. The Government bear full responsibility for failing to introduce this measure in sufficient time.
On Tuesday I watched the "Tonight" programme on television. I heard Mr. Christopher Mayhew, a former Labour MP and now a prominent Liberal supporter—I do not know whether he was talking as an individual or as a spokesman on behalf of the Liberal Party—waxing loud and long about the necessity of meeting the target date for direct elections. What he was inferring from that programme was that those of us who want direct elections must support the regional list system.
A few moments ago the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) implied that this was the only way that we could

achieve the target date. But we also heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) tell us that he could not see how it was possible to get this legislation through all its stages in time to meet the target date. In addition, the Minister of State told us that it would take a minimum of 18 weeks for the Boundary Commission to report. Therefore, the prospects of having an election under the first-past-the-post system become much more difficult.
I am not prepared to change our electoral system for something else unless I am convinced that that change is for the better. In this country we have a system whereby Members of Parliament are responsible to those who elect them. I believe that the direct contact between Members of Parliament and their electorate is a good thing. People should know exactly who their representatives are at the European Assembly because they would have a man or a woman whom they could contact to put their views on what was happening at the Assembly.
On the other hand, the original list system has many defects. Those people who are hankering for a change should think seriously before they proceed. I live in the North-West Region, and according to the Bill we are to have nine representatives covering Cheshire, Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. We should contemplate the size of the ballot paper because presumably there will be nine Conservative candidates, nine Labour candidates and nine Liberal candidates. There could even be nine National Front candidates, not to mention Independents.
That is confusing enough. But let us consider the South-East where there will be 14 representatives. Presumably there will be 14 candidates for each of the parties. I suggest that would mean having a ballot paper the size of a tablecloth.
In the North-West, 4·6 million people will elect nine representatives But each of them will have only one vote. They will be allowed to vote for only one particular candidate.
Some years ago in this House, certainly prior to the 1950 election, we had dual representation for certain towns. There were towns such as Sunderland, Oldham, Bolton, Preston, to name a few.
They had two Members of Parliament and everybody in that constituency was given the right to two votes and two Members of Parliament were elected. I cannot see why, if we are to have nine representatives who represent us according to the regional list, we should not be allowed the chance to vote for nine of the people who appear on the list. That woud give people a chance not just to vote for a party but to vote for an individual. With nine representatives covering a vast region there is the danger of remoteness.
I hope that whoever is replying for the Government will try to explain what happens should there be a vacancy in the European Assembly if we have the equivalent of what would be a by-election in the House of Commons, if one of the representatives at the Assembly should die or should resign. The system, as I understand it—am open to correction—is that one goes back to the original election results and takes the next person in line. But what happens if that person in the meantime has died, has left this country or has changed his mind and does not want to sit in the Assembly? I have never heard such nonsense in my life. I hope that this will be explained more fully before the Bill goes much further.

Mr. Russell Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman proposes that in a nine-member constituency individuals have nine votes, that could well mean that, for 35 per cent. of the vote, we could have all nine members elected for one party for the constituency. Surely that is not fair.

Mr. Montgomery: All I am saying is that if there are nine members we should at least have the chance to vote for the nine people on the list. The hon. Member for Inverness represents the Liberal Party. It is always pleading that it is the party of the individual, the party which is against the big battalions. Surely, with nine votes, people would have more chance to vote for individuals and the chances are that, with a single vote to elect nine members, a person will vote for a party rather than an individual. If that appeals to the Liberal Party I am glad that I am not a member of the Liberal Party.
How much easier it would be to have a first-past-the-post system. I am also opposed to the regional list because, as the Home Secretary made clear in the debate earlier this year, it is perfectly possible under this system to have somebody who would poll the highest number of individual votes in the region and still not be elected because his party had not received a sufficient percentage of the total votes cast. If that were to happen people would find it very difficult to comprehend and to accept.
There is one final argument that I have to put against the regional list system and that concerns the power and the patronage that I think would be placed in the hands of party headquarters. There are reports that our representatives at the European Assembly will have a salary of about £25,000 a year, at a low rate of tax and with substantial expense allowances. The high salary will be paid because our partners in the Community pay their representatives more than is paid in the House of Commons, and the salaries for the Assembly have to take this into account.
For somebody living in this country a salary of £25,000 a year, plus substantial expenses, would be riches indeed. We have to ponder exactly the power that would be exerted by party machines on representatives who do not always toe the party line. It would be very nice for those people in what I call the "my-party-right-or-wrong" brigade, but it would be very difficult for representatives who have independent minds and who would be valuable members of that Assembly. To be dropped from a party's regional list would be political oblivion for the representative who dared to step off the party line. I do not want to see more power concentrated in the hands of the party machine, but I believe that that would be a consequence of having the regional list system
You did ask, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members should be brief. I realise that there are a lot of hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate, and I know only too well the frustration of sitting through a debate and not being called. In fact, the debates in which I was never called were always the debates in which I was to make the most brilliant speeches. All my brilliant speeches ended up not being


made and became tiny bits of paper in a wastepaper basket.
I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading tonight and that when we reach Clause 3 in Committee sanity will prevail and the regional list system—concocted by the Government to appease their Liberal allies—will be deleted from the Bill.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I understand the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) to say that he agreed with the Government that no increase in the powers of the Assembly should be made without full legislation in this Chamber. If that is so, I hope that whoever speaks from the Opposition Front Bench later tonight will undertake to support us in ensuring that that safeguard is written into the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has already pointed out—the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border did not seem to know this—an increase in the power of the Assembly was made last summer in the matter of control over the budget, and there was certainly no full legislation in the House to validate that. Therefore, I think that we are entitled to have our anxieties on this point.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said today that from the Government's point of view there would be a free vote on the method of election to the Assembly, because it was a matter of great constitutional importance. He also said, in another part of his speech, that the Second Reading of this Bill was a matter of great constitutional importance. It would seem to follow that there ought to be an equally free vote on the Second Reading this evening.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State did not argue that there is an obligation on us under the Treaty of Rome to introduce direct elections. There is, of course, no obligation in the Treaty—I think that that ought to be made clear—on member States to introduce direct elections, still less to do so by a particular date. Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome lays one obligation on the EEC Assembly and one on the Council. It lays no obligation on member States. The obligation on the Assembly, is to:

draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
The obligation on the Council is "acting unanimously" to
lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
That is a recommendation, and, of course, a recommendation under Article 189 of the Treaty is not binding on anybody. It is, therefore, entirely open to member States—I hope that we are all agreed about this—and their Parliaments to accept or reject these recommendations as they think fit.
Indeed, strictly speaking, the present proposals are contrary to Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty requires the election to be in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member States. The present proposals clearly do not involve such a uniform procedure. There is, therefore, no treaty obligation involved here. If there had been, the Community would hardly have continued for 19 years without carrying it out.
We have had references to the referendum. There is certainly no mandate for direct elections, either from the referendum or from the electorate in any General Election in this country. The Government's referendum manifesto—it is usually the winning side's manifesto which is considered to give rise to a mandate, not the side which loses the election—made no mention whatever of direct elections. Presumably the Government's decision to omit any reference to direct elections in that manifesto was a deliberate one and not due to the author having forgotten to put it in. Not only does the referendum manifesto, if we take even a casual look at it, not mention direct elections; but the whole theme of it is to assert the primacy of the national Parliaments. It says, for example,
No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and a British Parliament.
It also says, of course:
Thus our continued membership depends on the continuing assent of Parliament.
Those were the assurances on which the electorate voted in the referendum. Therefore, to introduce the sweeping constitutional change involved in direct elections with no mandate, and despite the


assurances given at the time, is, in my view, a very dubious attitude towards the electorate. If that is not so, why were direct elections not mentioned in the responsible referendum manifesto?
Thirdly, I hope that we are all agreed that the agreement reached by the Government in September 1976 to introduce direct elections by a certain date may bind the Government, but it does not bind Parliament or the British electorate. The Government had no authority whatever from Parliament or the electorate to reach such an agreement. Of course, they can recommend such elections. They are entitled to do that to us here, but no more. Frankly, I tell them that if they persist in trying to impose party Whips on this matter, all that they will do is devalue the Labour Party Whip in future. I certainly do not see why Labour Members should be bound by a Liberal Whip—even less than by a Labour one.
On the party aspect of this matter, there is no dispute that the Labour Party conference has twice decided to oppose direct elections. The national executive document approved by the Labour Party conference last October stated quite unambiguously:
We reiterate yet again our opposition to Direct Elections.
I would not argue that that is any more totally binding on a Member of Parliament than are the arbitrary decisions of the Government. But, when it comes to party Whips, it is a matter to which we should give a little attention.
Fourthly, direct elections are being advocated by their principal supporters on the ground that they are a major step towards merging this country into a political union of one sort or another, whether it be called a federal State or a unitary State. I agree that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is strictly right in saying that the EEC is more a unitary State than a federal State. But that is wholly contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's letter of 30th September to the secretary of the Labour Party. That letter declared, for instance, that one primary aim of British policy should be
maintenance of the authority of national Governments and Parliaments".

That is the very antithesis of either the unitary State or the federal State which the supporters of direct elections seek.
Does anyone really deny that the principal supporters of direct elections regard them as a step towards a federal or a unitary State? In this connection, I quote the European Movement, about which we heard from the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The European Movement is, after all, the high priest of this whole movement and the drive behind this policy. In its publication called, oddly enough, "Facts" of September 1976, the European Movement said—and it must be a "fact", I suppose—that in two years, which means in 1978,
member countries of the Community will elect their first European Parliament. This historic decision represents the first real step towards the creation of the United States of Europe".
That is, the European Movement says, the purpose of the whole exercise.
Following that up, Lord Thomson, who was recently a Commissioner in Brussels, writing in Lloyds Bank Review of July this year, added:
From the moment of Direct Elections, the 'European' MPs will, with rare exceptions, cease to be colleagues "—
he means, of British Members of Parliament—
and become rivals, whose powers can be increased only by those of national Parliaments diminishing".
That, of course, is the truth of what is in the minds of those who support direct elections.
On Lord Thomson's own admission, the purpose and the effect of pursuing thsi Bill will be to weaken the British Parliament and, incidentally, to weaken the United Kingdom as a result of weakening this Parliament. It will merely intensify the damage which has already been done to this country economically in fisheries, agriculture and in many other ways which I have not time to mention by our membership of the Community.
Yet the British public are quite clearly no more anxious to join a federal or unitary State than they are to have their fishing industry ruined or the price of their food forced up to artificial levels. The electorate have never authorised any move of this kind. Indeed, a move towards federation is contrary to the referendum manifesto; it is contrary to


the Prime Minister's letter; and it is contrary to the decision of the Labour Party conference.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border twice used the word "disreputable" about the Government. Therefore, I assume that it must be a parliamentary word. It seems to me that the attempt to push this Bill forward in these circumstances, with no mandate or authority from the electorate, is just another attempt to introduce a sweeping constitutional change by stealth, without the elementary honesty of admitting what one is doing.
If anyone wants this country to be merged in either a federal or a unitary State, let him say so openly and bring that proposal before the electorate. But the device of constitutional change by stealth inherent in this Bill is, in my view, just one more disreputable fraud in this long story of deception. It deserves a straightforwdard rejection from any honest Member of this House.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: I think that all of us find it easy to respond to honest differences of opinion, but when differences of opinion are extended to the point where they disguise the reality of the issues we become a little concerned.
I feel very conscious that in my generation of politics we have embarked upon one of the most interesting ventures in the world, which is the recognition by the nations of Europe of their common interest in Europe.
The recognition of our common interest does not necessarily mean that it should lead to a political unity of Europe. As we argue this point, do not let us forget the common interest. We have 19—soon to be 20—parliamentary democracies of Europe doing a worthwhile job in the Council of Europe. We have nine in the Economic Community. We have seven in Western European Union. There are strong differences of opinion and approach in all those organisations, but they exist because of the need to uphold the common interest of Europe.
I do not find the EEC as it stands now a totally satisfactory body. I am sure that it will not continue to exist in its present form. My prediction is that it will not move to a federal State of Europe. But it exists, and it is serving

a purpose. Our problem is how to make it work to the best advantage in Europe and to the best advantage of the United Kingdom.
I do not quite follow the argument that there is no obligation to have direct elections. It seemed implicit to me from the Treaty of Rome that sooner or later we should be confronted with the call for direct elections to the Assembly. However, we have a duty to argue how best to do that, and I must confess that I have considerable reservations about the present Bill and the present approach. As I weigh that reserve, I must weigh what the consequences would be in terms of the standing of the United Kingdom with its neighbours in Europe.
I hope that no one will think that I am facetious as I develop my argument, but many outside the House would say that we are a House of humbugs and hypocrites. Probably we would all be angry if we heard that said. We would resent it, or at the very best we would feel uneasy. However, we would all have to confess that we can be impudently inconsistent and impressively illogical.
It so happens that in the past fortnight we have given one of our masterly performances in both directions while considering important constitutional Bills. Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill stated the obvious if the Bill was read as a Bill. It talked very much about the unity of the United Kingdom. It talked a great deal about the sovereignty of Parliament. We now have a Bill before us in which those issues are of equal relevance, but the Bill is deficient in a sense in which the Scotland Bill was not. That is because there is a question mark over the sovereignty of Parliament in terms of a European Assembly.
That question must arise because it is not a matter of devolving power. To a limited extent we have transferred power. Some will argue that Parliament cannot transfer power irrevocably, but certain power has passed quite decisively outside our control. We are now dependent on a Council of Ministers and on an Assembly to look after the national interest. It seems sensible that while the Council of Ministers looks after the national interest there should be directly-elected representatives of the people to look after the bread-and-butter issues that affect them very much stemming


from European Economic Community decisions—for example, the butter mountains and wine lakes.
It is at this stage that my reservation grows. We have the people's representatives as such operating at a level at which they can look after the people's interests. They can and must inevitably come into conflict with the representatives of the nation. Surely that is not a good thing.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) helped us with his positive proposal in terms of any enlargement or extension of the Community. Surely some similar proposal should be inserted in the Bill to guide the people's representatives in the Assembly and to allow them to understand their position if they should come in conflict with the decisions of this House. It would be absurd if by a resolution or some other measure a firm decision was taken in this Parliament and we found the representatives of the United Kingdom in the Assembly going in the opposite direction.
The bones of the argument that seem to be developing are not what we elect these members for but how we elect them. It is in an area of argument that gives some credibility to those who regard us as humbugs and hypocrites. I find it astonishing that after almost 10 days of talking about the unity of the United Kingdom we should have different forms of franchise in a Bill to elect members to the European Assembly. I believe in direct elections, but I shall not vote for any Bill that says that one part of the United Kigndom votes in one way and another part votes in another way. That is a totally indefensible position for any Government to put the House in, and I am dismayed that there has not been much stronger protest from both sides of the House. We cannot talk one way one week and another way the next week.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Moray and Nairn): We can here.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman will not last long here.

Mr. Craig: I shall not say that the SNP may do it. We can all do it, but we do it at a cost. That is a cost that we should not be prepared to pay.
As for my part of the kingdom, I hope that the franchise, whichever form it takes, it will be on the same basis as that which applies to the rest of the kingdom. All this malarkey about a different state of affairs in Northern Ireland is no excuse or justification for what is being done.
I believe that a proportional representation system is the best form of election to any Chamber, but I do not believe that any country should reach the position where there are two forms, or perhaps, three, of franchise operating within it. Our people are clever and able and they can grasp the issues. However, from the experience that we have had in Northern Ireland, where we vote in United Kingdom elections on the first-past-the-post system and for certain Northern Ireland bodies on an STV system, the use of different systems causes a great deal of confusion.
I should like to see us maintain the first-past-the-post system for the time being, or until such time as we reach a decision on a comprehensive scale for the franchise for all elected bodies relating to the government of this country. I am sure that that will be in our best interests. I lend my weight to those who advocate the merits of the modified party list system where there is the benefit of single-Member constituencies. That system can be manipulated to allow one election to do several jobs.
In the meantime, I feel that the House has a duty to get on with the business of honouring its obligations. There must be direct elections, and I commend the first-past-the-post system in the situation in which we now find ourselves. I shall not vote for the Bill's Second Reading because of the unfair and illogical discrimination against Northern Ireland.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said in his opening remarks, although I think that he would have to admit that the Government's proposals for the regional list system would give a similar system of voting in Northern Ireland and in the other parts of the kingdom. As that is the preferred system in the Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, will reconsider how he intends to vote.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, it is difficult to be original in this debate, particularly for those who have spoken on the subject before. However, in view of what has been said, certain points need to be reiterated.
What are the principal reasons that have led us to consider the Bill? Why are direct elections being proposed at this time? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that they have not been proposed at this moment merely because of that which is contained in the Treaty of Rome. The relevant passage has been in the Treaty for about 20 years, and until now nothing has been done. I do not believe that this action is being taken as a backdoor approach to federalism or supranationalism.
A directly-elected Parliament—no one will dispute this—is a necessary component of any more closely integrated political decision-making process. However, in at least three of the countries of the Community, and perhaps four, it is clear that both the Governments and the major political parties are firmly committed against federalism as an immediate political objective. I speak of France, the United Kingdom and Denmark, where the parties are opposed to steps being taken at this stage, or in the foreseeable political future, in the direction of a federal Europe, let alone the unified State of which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke.
Any such move, even if it were contemplated, would require new decisions of each of the Governments. It would also involve an amendment to the Treaty that has been signed by each of the Parliaments. The possibility of such a move is now less likely. It will still be unlikely after the passage of this measure, as it was at the time that Britain became a member of the Community and as it was at the time of the 1975 referendum. If one travels in the Community one finds that the momentum towards a federal Europe is very much less strong than it was in the earlier years of the debate.
However, I believe that there are a number of good and practical reasons why we should move towards direct elections. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, it will mean that there will be more effective

debate throughout the Community on European issues, not only among those who will vote and will therefore be forced to consider European issues before doing so, and not only in the media, but in all the political parties of the Community. That will apply both at a national level and, in some cases, among the families of European parties, at a European level, too.
This is quite clearly already obliging political parties to work out, in some cases for the first time, coherent approaches towards the Community which go beyond the biased platitudes which have served for too long in too many parties as the excuses for the absence of proper policies towards the Community. Perhaps more important is that it will force political parties to work out the relationships between policies they put forward at national elections and for national Governments, and the policies they propose at European elections for the future of the Community as a whole.
Secondly, without in any way increasing the legal powers of the Parliament, there is no doubt that direct elections will give an authority to the European Parliament—or, if the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) insists, the European Assembly—to exercise its existing powers more effectively. I believe that this scrutiny and control of the Commission and the dialogue which can take place between the Assembly and the Council of Ministers will provide a more effective complement to the work of national Parliaments which must, of course, continue.
However, the European Parliament will be able to do something which no national Parliament can achieve. It will be able to serve as a focus at a European level for public debate on the major issues facing the Community. With great respect to my hon. Friends who serve in the Parliament at the moment, I believe that it will be able to do that more effectively and with more authority after it has been directly elected.

Mr. Spearing: If what my hon. Friend said is correct—and he may well be right—is it not a fact that because such scrutiny, discussion and access would take place in the European Assembly rather than in this House, two MPs would be taking up the same subject and not only would there be confusion but this House


would have lost its powers and there would be a trend towards the unitary State of which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke.

Mr. Roper: I know that my hon. Friend holds that view, but I believe that the functions of the national Parliaments and of the European Parliament and its committees will usefully complement each other. There is no reason to assume, particularly while the Council of Ministers operates as it does, that that would be the case, and that there would be an important rôle for national Ministers attending the Council of Ministers.
The third reason why direct elections arc now necessary and should be proceeded with is that a directly-elected Parliament will free its Members from their commitment to national Parliaments. While that may create some of the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, I believe that it will enable Members to give their attention to the activities of the European Parliament. Those who have taken part in the proceedings of the Assembly will agree that the dual mandate has not proved satisfactory for Members of this House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Why does my hon. Friend think that when a Member is elected to represent a constituency which is 10 times the size of existing constituencies he will be less involved with what happens at constituency level? Why does he think that such Members will be better informed about the political system if they have no direct contact with the national Government? Surely they will become increasingly isolated.

Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend suggests that such Members will have more to do with their constituencies, and I am sure that they will. However, they will not have the responsibility for a constituent in the sense that a Member of a national Parliament will have that responsibility. European Members will be freed of the obligations which at present bring them back to Westminster when the Whips require them to return. That makes the situation altogether unsatisfactory. I agree that there will be a problem to ensure

that such Members are properly integrated into the political life of their parties, and I am sure that that is a matter for the parties to deal with in the same way that they ensure that the Members of any other Parliament are so integrated.
Inevitably, however, as we saw last week, the Whips consider that Westminster must take precedence over the activities in Luxembourg and Brussels. That has meant an unnecessary amount of exhausting travel for the Members of the European Parliament. Those Members are often forced to miss important debates in Europe in order to be back in this House. If the European Parliament is to do its existing job properly it requires, as this House does, that its Members should devote the overwhelming majority of their time to it.
I come to the system of election. I strongly support the proposals that the Government have put forward in the Bill for the regional list system. I believe that that system is right because the European Parliament does not have the task which this House faces of building a majority. This House is representative of opinion, and therefore the system of PR which would not be right for this House would prove appropriate for the European Parliament.
I believe that there is likely to be a move very shortly towards a system of proportional representation throughout Europe. I believe that the chance of our being able to persuade the eight other members to move to a first-past-the-post system in individual constituencies is very remote. Therefore, we should be moving in the direction in which we shall ultimately have to go.
This system will enable the House to complete the Bill in time to meet the proposed timetable. I trust, therefore, that the Government will propose, and that the House will agree to, consideration of the appropriate clauses of the Bill as soon as possible in order that a decision can be taken at the earliest possible stage on the system of election. That decision should be made before Christmas, if possible.
But if the House decides on the first-past-the-post system I hope that it will carefully consider whether there is a need for the whole procedure of the Boundary Commission. In July I tabled amend-


ments to the original Bill to the effect that the House would determine the 78 constituencies, leaving aside for the moment the question of Northern Ireland. I was therefore rather interested to read the comments of one of the authorities on electoral procedure in this country. Dr. David Butler of Nuffield College has written:
If we are to have first past the post elections, there is no virtue in delimiting European constituencies through the boundary commission procedure, appropriate and just though it is for drawing up Westminster constituencies. There are no fine lines to be drawn, no delicate decisions about whether a particular ward or parish most properly belongs with the West or the East Division.
After considering the boundaries I drew up and another set of boundaries that he drew up with a former president of the Liberal Party, he says:
Granted the political geography of Britain, it would be difficult to devise 81 seats that conformed to the first three principles yet proved an effective gerrymander in favour of one or other of the parties. And if anyone tried it would be very easy to show the endeavour up for what it was.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reply to the difficult question whether the House could itself draw up the boundaries. Obviously that question does not arise if we vote, as I hope we shall, in favour of proportional representation. However, I hope that he will keep an open mind on this option. I believe that if we were to be so foolish as to reject the regional list system, it would be an option to which the House should give its careful consideration.
The decision tonight will obviously be a major step forward for this country and, I believe, our partners in the Community. Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading by an even larger majority than it was given in July and that we shall proceed speedily to complete the Committee stage.

7.1 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I understand that when the great constitutional change in Scotland and England took place in 1707, when the two countries entered into a common market, the House of Parliament in Scotland was packed with Members and the streets were full of people eagerly awaiting the news. The attendance in this House tonight does not seem to indicate

that a great constitutional change is being debated.
We are concerned with making a forum, to which we send nominees, more democratic. It is a simple proposition. We are not arguing whether we should or should not have entered the Common Market. It is no secret that the Scottish National Party campaigned against Britain's entry into the European Community. We were not successful, because the separate Scottish result was 57 per cent. for entry. That is a fact of life with which we have to live.
I cannot follow the argument that making the forum to which we send nominees more democratic will inevitably lead to political union or to a federal system in Europe. That argument is often repeated by people who regard it as gospel. However, they have not yet explained to my satisfaction how it will come about without our noticing it. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) dealt with this matter adequately when he explained that the change either to political union or to a federal system could not take place inadvertently.
Scotland would like to see in Europe a confederation of self-governing States, Scotland being one of them. That cannot happen inadvertently.
Direct elections to the European Parliament were fully debated at the SNP's summer conference. We decided to take part in direct elections to the European Parliament. Whatever method of voting may be adopted, the SNP is confident of winning about six of the eight seats.
There is not much public interest in direct elections to the European Assembly. At least, that is my experience. I suggest that it is dangerous to have a political institution in which there is so little public interest. It is dangerous to have an institution with so many powers and with the public, on the whole, knowing very little about it. That may be largely their fault, or it may be partly the fault of the media, because it is expensive to maintain representatives of all the various newspapers at the European Parliament.
I believe that if we have direct elections instead of sending nominees, there will be much greater public interest. That follows logically, because people will have votes to cast. The average man is


sensible. He will want to know what he is casting his vote for, what the impact of his vote will be and to what kind of institution his representative will be sent. As long as the political institution exists, it should have a lot of attention paid to it. After all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Where there is no interest, there cannot be much vigilance over what goes on in the European Parliament. Such interest will be stepped up considerably by direct elections.
There is a genuine feeling among people in Scotland that they have always been part of Europe. After all, Scotland has a European system of law quite distinct from the English legal system. That makes the Scots feel very European when it comes to legal matters. Scotland used to look to Europe for its allies in older times, for obvious reasons with which I shall not bore the House. We may perhaps have to look to Europe again. At any rate, Scotland has a historical background of alliances with Europe. We had joint citizenship with France until General de Gaulle cancelled that right in comparatively modern times. I repeat, there will be a considerable upsurge of public interest in direct elections to the European Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that the move to direct elections would weaken this Parliament. Again, I do not know that I quite follow that argument. I should need it spelt out in more detail. Is the argument that this House will lose powers of scrutiny? I should like the Minister to deal with that matter in his winding-up speech tonight. Will this House lose control over legislation from the EEC? Will it in some way opt out of its present desire to scrutinise such legislation? I ask the Minister to deal with that point when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Julius Silverman: If this House does not appoint Members to the Assembly, obviously it will have less influence than it had before.

Mrs. Ewing: The people, who are more important than Members of Parliamen, will have more power because they will be making the decision.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not true.

Mrs. Ewing: I believe that if the people are allowed to choose who should go to Luxembourg instead of leaving it to the Prime Minister to decide, that must be an increase in democracy. It must give more power to the people and, admittedly, less power to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Silverman: Exactly.

Mrs. Ewing: I should like to think that people are more important than Members of Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Lady agree that, although the Assembly would have a great deal of influence, it would not have the power that this House should have?

Mrs. Ewing: The fact that the hon. Gentleman makes that statement does not make it true. I do not follow this particular argument. I do not think that this change will or can come about inadvertently, to use the word used by the right hon. Member for Fulham.
I turn now to the effect of direct elections on the European Assembly. I believe that that Assembly will look for more powers at the expense of the Commission. It does not control the two executive arms, the Council and the Commission. In my opinion, the Commission is too powerful—for instance, in the way that it initiates legislation in the Assembly. I think that after direct elections we shall see Members of Parliament attending the European Assembly not one week a month but on a more full-time basis. Naturally, such Members will wish to use their time to work. They will want to control and, I suggest, to seek to initiate legislation in that Chamber.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Legislation, yes.

Mrs. Ewing: That is what I see happening.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is right.

Mrs. Ewing: As a Member of the European Parliament, I find it frustrating when, on the way back on the charter flight, I read in the Financial Times that the EEC has decided X or Y when in fact it has decided no such thing. It is unsatisfactory to be a Member of such an Assembly indefinitely. One can put up with it in the short term, but it is not


sensible to send representatives as a kind of charade. The people should elect full-time Members to do a workmanlike job and, as far as possible, to exert more control over the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
The dual mandate is possible only on a short-term basis. I have travelled to Strasbourg and been whipped back, as have many others, to vote in this House. Many Members have found a conflict in time. It may be known to the House that I have tried for a long time in the European Assembly to get an amendment of the common fisheries policy. There is to be an important fishing debate at the next Assembly meeting in December, but this House will be debating the Scotland Bill then and, even with the best will in the world, one cannot be in two places at once. There is no way around the conflict except by abolishing the dual mandate.
One of the arguments against direct elections is that in some way they will give credibility to the European Assembly. I cannot understand that argument. The Assembly is there and, therefore, it is credible. It will not go away just because some people do not want to be Members of it. The only way in which the Assembly can, as it were, go away is for the House to decide to come out of the European Community. That could be done, but as long as the Assembly is there it is credible. What will make it more credible is that Members will be elected democratically.
I now come to the matter of voting. I have always stated my preference for a geographical connection and a set of responsibilities, because I feel that this keeps Members more in touch with the realities of life and makes them more effective in considering measures that come before them.
I said in an earlier speech on this subject that I was fairly certain that if we were not careful we would end up with the list system. It looks as though that is happening, and I urge the Minister to say whether there is any possibility even now of getting the first-past-the-post system in time for our moral commitment to hold elections by May of next year.
Under the regional list system, Scotland is to have eight seats. I do not find this satisfactory. One does not need to

make many comparisons to realise how absurd this seems in Scotland, though it may not seem absurd in England. Scotland is a nation, yet Luxembourg, with half the population of Edinburgh, will have a number of delegates. I am not objecting to Luxembourg having that number, because with a smaller number a member State could not function. I am not objecting to Luxembourg's position, but I am arguing that Scotland should have more than eight seats.
We have a population of similar size to that of Denmark, another of Europe's ancient nations, and we say that we should have parity with that country. We could make a comparison with Ireland. The population there is smaller than that of Scotland, yet it is to have more representatives than we are to be allowed.
We have made it plain that we shall not vote against the Bill, but we have said that we are committed to improving the democracy of the Assembly by supporting direct elections, and that we shall do. But the question of eight seats for Scotland and four for Wales, if I might bring in my colleagues' nation, is not satisfactory.
The matter will be resolved when Scotland becomes independent, because it will then decide whether or not to stay in the EEC. It will be the people of Scotland who will decide that on the terms that are then available to them. They will decide, and there will be no question of our staying in without parity. That goes without saying.
I think that the terms that Scotland wants will be met if she is prepared to stay in, because we are economically desirable owing to certain commodities that are found in the North Sea. There is black oil for one thing, and we have the richest fish pond in the Northern Atlantic. I leave the matter there.
I believe that after direct elections we shall see interesting developments within the European Assembly. I think that we shall see some regroupings. I believe that my party's representatives will form a group with the representatives of Wales and other countries with common interests.
My hon. Friends and I will go into the Lobby tonight to support the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) said that she would go into the Lobby tonight in support of the Bill. We have spent the best part of two weeks in this House deciding what powers we shall transfer to Scotland, and I understand that we are to spend two days every week from now until Christmas deciding the issue of Scottish and Welsh devolution. There would be no purpose in either of those Bills if they were not designed to transfer power. There would be no purpose in the Bill now before us if that, too, was not designed to transfer power.
It is all very well to pretend that as long as the representatives are selected the Assembly is not democratic, but it is equally fallacious to pretend that democratically elected people will be content with the same powers as are available to selected Members. The elected Members will go to that Assembly with the full authority of the United Kingdom electorate. They will be, and must be, a challenge to the authority of this House, because they will have been elected by all those in this country who are entitled to vote.
These representatives will have to be given some powers. They will demand them, and if they are to have more powers the only place from which they can get them is this House, because this is the only place that can bestow them. It follows that if those representatives have more power, we shall have less. We must tell the people of this country whether we are proposing to give some of the powers of this House to those who will be elected to Europe.
The hon. Lady said that there did not seem to be much interest in this subject and that it was not regarded as a burning issue. At least 200 people have come to see me this week. I have had big lobbies every day, but not one of my constituents, who have travelled 300 miles to see me—and they represent all kinds of workers—has said that direct elections to Europe are a burning issue. If I could have told those who have come to see me this week from Jarrow that the £10 million that we are to spend on this fiasco could be spent in Jarrow they would have been delighted, because it would be money better spent.
In opening the debate for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) almost foamed at the mouth over the delay that there had been in introducing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was one of those who, by means of a guillotine, bludgeoned through the House a Bill which received its Third Reading with not a dot or a comma changed from its form on Second Reading, and I can understand why he needs to froth at the mouth over the Government's delay on this issue.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman and many others to read the speeches they made when they were pushing that Bill through, bearing in mind that this is a consequence of what they did then. Have they given our people the promised land that they said would be available? Advertisements in the Jarrow newspapers said that if we were part of Europe capital would flow into Jarrow just like water flowing down a river bed and the unemployment queues would disappear.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Who said that?

Mr. Fernyhough: The world was to be a wonderful place. That was what one gathered from an advertisement placed in the Jarrow Press by the European Movement. If the hon. Gentleman wants examples of what was said, he should read the speeches of Conservative Members. He can have them with pleasure; they make refreshing and invigorating reading.
Does anybody really believe that if we had been in the situation in which we are now back in 1972 it would have been popular to take this country into the EEC? It does not bear thinking of. In the five years we have been in Europe, none of our problems has become easier. They have simply become worse.
I shall put one simple proposition: we are facing a big problem of inflation, until a few months ago we had a balance of payments problem, and we are still not getting the capital investment that we should have. We are told that if only we could get our inflation down industrial investment would follow and our balance of payments and unemployment problems would be solved.
But West Germany has invested. It has no balance of payments problem and


little inflation. Yet Germany would have more than 2 million unemployed if it had not sent its 1 million immigrants back—Turks, Yugoslays and other foreign workers. Therefore, the most prosperous nation in Europe, the one that was held up as a beacon and was looked up to when we first went into Europe, would have had, had it not been allowed to send its immigrants back, bigger unemployment problems than we have, and without having our other problems to solve.
This Parliament may decide to give more powers to the European Parliament. But the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has made it clear repeatedly that what one Parliament does another Parliament can undo. Although at this moment it seems impossible to think that we would ever come out of Europe, I am satisfied that if we were to have a new relationship with Europe it would be a loosely-drawn, friendly association, not laid down with every dot and comma as in the Treaty of Rome. I have not shifted my ground on this issue. I remain today as unhopeful about the future of the EEC as I was when it was first discussed. We have always looked upon it as if we were glancing into a crystal ball and it was the one way to salvation.
I maintain and I have always maintained that if the British people are to be saved it will be by their own efforts, endeavours and hard work. There is no Santa Claus who can come to our rescue, no saviour from outside. It is our own determination and efforts that will save us.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: Since this Session of Parliament started we have spent our time debating constitutional matters, and it looks as if this will be our lot well into next year. The problems of unemployment, inflation, wages, lawlessness and strikes are far more in the forefront of people's minds than are constitutional matters, but that does not necessarily mean that we should not face up to them.
Let us look at the constitutional issues besetting us, both current and historical. At present we have Northern Ireland, which is a hangover from last century's Irish problem. We have the Scotland Bill, the Wales Bill, the reform of the

Upper House, and now the European Assembly Elections Bill. Westminster seems to be suffering from a sort of constitutional constipation. It does not appear to be able to change, while the world around it has changed. This is the main reason for the constitutional problems that are plaguing us. We are unable to discuss them over party barriers and we do not appear to allow common sense to prevail.
Today's debate is about direct elections. If the House adopted the sensible suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for a constitutional conference to resolve the problems of devolution for Scotland and Wales, such a conference could look at other constitutional problems that I have mentioned as well.
If we look at other democratic Governments throughout the world, some unpalatable facts present themselves to us. Consider just the victors and the vanquished from the Second World War for example. Our Parliament has the unenviable reputation of sitting more hours a year than any other democratic Parliament. We sit for sonic 1,500 hours a year. That has been the average for the last five years. At the other end of the scale, the West German Parliament sits, on average, for 300 hours a year. It would seem that a country's industrial strength and, as a result, the standard of living of its people is in inverse proportion to the hours spent in debate and in legislation by its Parliament.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that another virtue of the West German Parliament is that legislation often starts in Committee upstairs and processes down to the Floor of the House, in a rather more rational way? We do it the other way around.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept that. The message from West Germany is even stronger. After the war we put into operation there a system of government to keep it somewhat weaker and somewhat divided. In fact, its federal system could well be the model for the devolution problems that are currently besetting us. After all, the nations that make up the United Kingdom have stronger national roots than those that comprise the German federation, and as to numbers and size, compare the 700,000 population and area


of Bremen with the 17 million-odd and size of North Rhine Westphalia.
As an aside, we also put a trade union set-up into Germany to stop their industrial moguls from becoming too dominant again. Who now leads in industrial democracy, two-tier boards, worker participation, less strikes and more prosperity?
Will we make a mess of this direct elections Bill? All the possible reasons for doing so remain in this House. This is another constitutional matter and, as I said earlier, we never seem to get these matters right.
The object of this Bill is to implement Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, to which we are signatories, and even went through a process of referendum to confirm. Article 138 calls for direct elections through universal suffrage to the European Parliament. The two points that we must decide are the constituency and the method.
As regards the constituency, we can either have Euro-constituencies or regional lists and I come down in favour of the latter. To produce a Euro-constituency means lumping together 8 to 10 of our present contiguous Westminster constituencies, regardless of the fact that they may well have varying or even conflicting interests. Some people even argue that if we do not have the Euro-constituency the link between member and voter is lost. But as surveys show that many people in our present constituencies of, say, 50,000 electors do not even know the name of their Member of Parliament, this argument hardly holds water when we consider electorates of 500,000 being served for purposes different from Westminster.
I believe that the 11 economic planning regions of England, with the addition of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as units, make much more sense. For each of these 14 regions there would be regional lists from parties or individual names from independents as suggested in the Bill.
As regards the method of election, our present first-past-the-post system fits in well with our tried and proven two-party democratic system here in Westminster but it does not suit Europe where there are nine countries and in most of them a variety of parties.
Turning now to Scotland, with which I am particularly concerned, there are additional points I wish to make. First, as regards numbers, Scotland is to have eight seats and we know that this proposal has come in for some criticism north of the border because of the 16 seats, for example, allocated to Denmark, a country of similar population. Certainly we have the advantage of going in as part of the United Kingdom with the same weight as Germany, France and Italy, but this does not resolve the question entirely in Scottish eyes.
Again here I turn to our constitutional shortcomings. Were we to get things right here by a constitutional conference, instead of ploughing on with the present bad and divisive Scotland Bill, we might see some solution with, say, 100 to 120 Scots in an Assembly, 50 to 60 Members here, and around 10 to 12 in Europe—in other words, respecting the unity of the United Kingdom, and yet putting Scotland in a halfway position between say Denmark and Yorkshire—in other words, a quasifederal solution, with appropriate reductions and new arrangements here and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The next point is of course the fact that currently we have three roughly equal parties in Scotland, as opposed to the position south of the border. This means that, without some form of PR, any party that gains even a slight edge in votes in Scotland would have an excessive number of Members in the European Parliament compared to the other two, and possibly even more than the other two put together.
In all this context it is interesting to realise that our European partners all intend to use PR on regional lists, and it might be advisable for us to consider that in this instance they might have come up with the most sensible and satisfactory solution. After all, even if we do not yet accept regional lists, we are committed to PR for the second round of European elections.
I wish to conclude by saying that Scotland has historical and traditional ties with Europe. Therefore, I regret the shilly-shallying and manoeuvrings that have caused the present Government to delay the introduction of this Bill, a measure which could have been brought in long before now. To bring it in timorously at the end of last Session, when it


was bound to drop and have to be reintroduced this Session, was another cynical act of capitulation to those who will oppose this Bill—not because they object to the principle of direct elections or democracy, but because they oppose the whole European ideal.
Scotland, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, wants Europe and Europe needs the United Kingdom with the distinct and unique contribution that Scotland can then bring to Europe. I welcome this Bill, and it will give me the greatest personal pleasure as a Scottish Member to support it in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): There are about 14 Members who are still anxious to catch the eye of the Chair. Since I understand that in the European Parliament the time limit applying to speakers, depending on the imporstance of the subject under discussion, ranges from five to 10 minutes, it would be helpful if those who are proposing to take part in this debate would try to practise this discipline so that they may prepare themselves for membership of the Assembly.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fair-grieve), except to say that in his eulogies of foreign States he sounded like a Right-wing Alex Kitson. I am sure that he did not mean to sound that way. It is a little displeasing to some of us to find pro-European Members running down the systems which we have built up in this country since those systems have stood the test of time. However, I shall not continue to pursue that line of argument.
When my hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke, I was struck by what appeared to be a paradox. He described this Bill as a great constitutional issue. He then told us that the European Assembly had no legislative or executive powers. What he was trying to tell us—and I do not think he was right—was that because the European Assembly has no powers it is unimportant. If that is so, why do we have to raise the great panoply of national elections to give backing to an Assembly that is without powers? It has far fewer powers than a

parish council. Therefore, why do we want to spend a great deal of money in setting up this great organisation so as to give it popular support?
Since the Assembly has no powers of taxation, the dictum "No taxation without representation" does not apply. If this Assembly does not have any powers, why are we taking so much trouble? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently wrote to the national executive committee of the Labour Party setting out his views and reservations on the Common Market, seeking discussions on the common agricultural policy, and questioning our further involvement. I believe that the Prime Minister is less than enamoured of the EEC. I believe that he understands the great importance of history in this context. I am sure he understands that Hugh Gaitskell, in 1962, was right to say that one cannot wipe out in one stroke a thousand years of history.
I trust the Prime Minister, and I believe that so long as he is in office he will ensure that we are not dragged into a federal State, call it what one will. So long as he is there, I feel sure that he will prevent such a union with Europe. Although the Prime Minister might be a kind of Moses bringing Tablets to put on the Dispatch Box every Tuesday and Thursday, he is not Methuselah and will not be in office for ever. We shall have other Prime Ministers. We may even have other parties in Government. I hope that the Labour Party will be in power for a long time, but at the back of our minds is the enormity of the thought that in a few years, after it has lost the next General Election, the Tory Party may be led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). God forbid that that will happen, but we may have that imposed upon us. That will leave a party composed of Euro-fanatics which is so besotted with Europe that it will slip through another measure such as the Bill to take us into Europe, which scraped by with such a narrow majority.
We must take a longer-term view of the matter. Those of us who will vote against the Bill fear the erosion of the powers of this House. We know how those powers can be eroded by stealth or by the enormous influence of people who are not necessarily in the House or the European Assembly. We have seen the


influence that such people can have. Nobody who looks at the communications that come from the European Movement or who reads the statements of Commissioners or ex-Commissioners of the European Commission can have any doubt that there are those in powerful places who want to see a political union in Europe.
We ought to read all those communications, but the trouble is that we are so inundated with them that we are smothered and cannot read them all. One may miss something of great importance. I took the trouble to read the speech that was made by Commissioner Tugendhat at a lunch given in London on 4th November by the English-Speaking Union. What he said confirmed my worst fears. I must quote it because it is relevant to the debate, but I shall cut out the first part.
The Commissioner was referring to making the Council corporately responsible. He said:
National Parliaments necessarily have constitutional powers over a minister only in his capacity as a member of a national government. National MPs can ask Mr. Silkin or Herr Ertl, for example, why they pursued a particular policy over agricultural prices, and whether or not they succeeded in the objectives to which their national governments are committed".
But here is the rub:
But they cannot force the Council as a corporate body to explain why it reached particular decisions, which sections of society in the Community will gain or lose or how those decisions fit in with other European objectives. Only a supra-national body organised on a Community basis can hope to perform the vitally necessary task of obliging the Council fully to explain and justify its corporate acts".
If that is not a move towards a supranational state, federalism and political union, I do not know what is. I know that many believe that we should take that path, but we are also told by the Opposition and Government Front Benches that that is not the intention and that it will not happen.
What, then, will happen if Mr. Tugendhat has his way? We shall find that our Ministers who are sent to Europe, who are responsible to Parliament, elected by our people as part of that Government and who must be approved of by this Parliament, will be answerable, not to this Parliament, but to a Parliament outside the United

Kingdom. There is no other way. It is bound to happen and this is the beginning of European cabinet Government. What will happen eventually is that the European Assembly will demand, not that Ministers should be sent from here, from the French National Assembly or the German Bundestag, but that they put them there and that the Ministers should be anaswerable to the Assembly.
That is why this Bill represents a great fundamental and constitutional issue and why I wish tonight to vote against it. I have a duty that transcends all other considerations to do what I think is right for my constituents and the whole country. I hope that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members will join me in the Lobby.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: In listening to the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and others, I could not but think that some hon. Members are still finding themselves, at this late hour, in the battle of the referendum of 1975. That was decided by the British people with no uncertain voice. Almost immediately afterwards, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), commmitted this country as a matter of honour to arrive expeditiously at agreement on direct elections to the European Assembly. That promise has been repeated often by Government Ministers and Prime Ministeres. Indeed, in February i976 during the debate on the Green Paper my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that we were committed as a nation as a matter of honour and that we had "a commitment of honour". [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I quote the words: "a commitment of honour" to support direct elections to the European Asseembly.
In The Timesthis morning, a number of distinguished European parliamentarians who have served Europe and their own Governments within the Community in Brussels joined in pointing out that, if we were to postpone direct elections in this country,
A delay in Britain would thus deprive citizens of other Community countries of their promised democratic rights.
The letter was signed by Jean Rey of Brussels, Horst Seefeld of Bonn, Miriam


Hederman O'Brien of Dublin, J. H. C. Molenaar of The Hague, Louis Leprince-Ringuet of Paris, and Giuseppe Petrilli of Rome. They were right: we have an obligation of honour, and we ought to proceed with all speed to fulfil that obligation by passing the Bill as speedily as possible.

Mr. Alan Clark: I always have the greatest respect for the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), but honour is totally irrelevant. We are elected not to discharge debts of honour hut to advance, nurture and protect the interests of citizens of this country.

Mr. Grieve: Naturally, I accept that. Nevertheless, when, in agreement with other countries that are our allies, the people with whom we work most closely in Europe, we have entered into a solemn obligation, it would be dangerous indeed if the Government and Parliament were to resile from that obligation. However, I do not pin my adhesion to the cause of European direct elections and my support for the Bill to that argument.
I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whose utterances and contributions to our debates are always heard with the greatest attention. I did not for one moment find myself differing from his analysis of the consequences of direct elections. It was detailed and profound. However, we differ profoundly in the conclusions that we draw from that analysis. I hope that when the right hon. Member has heard my argument he will agree that our analyses are the same. Direct elections are essential to the democratic evolution of Europe and for laying the firm foundations of a lasting Community. On paper, I agree that the powers of the Assembly would not be increased one whit by direct elections. There may be subsequent proposals to increase the powers, but they are not increased by the fact of direct elections.
The balance of power between the Assembly on the one hand and Ministers and the Commission on the other hand is bound to be profoundly affected by the fact of direct elections. The right hon. Member for Down, South hesitates at that and disapproves. I welcome it and approve it. It is on that basis that I support the Bill.
There is all the difference in the world between an Assembly made up of nominated delegates and an Assembly with all the self-confidence of those who are elected representatives of the people of Europe. Such elections are necessary to give a democratic basis for the Community, and it is essential to give the European Assembly the right to exercise, when it sees fit, such powers as it has now—they are not small powers because they include the power to refuse the budget and, in the last resort, to dismiss the Commission—and the powers that develop in future. Powers will always develop in the hands of democratically, directly-elected Members.
Are we to say "No" to a democratically-elected Assembly? We are members of a democratically-elected Assembly ourselves, and the people should have a voice in sending democratically-elected representatives to the European Assembly.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who said that we could not foresee the precise form that European institutions will take as the years go by. I am not one to commit myself to a federal, confederal or any other view, but for the sake of my country, peace in the world and the power and influence of Great Britain we must give a proper democratic base to the Community. It is for that reason that I welcome the Bill and give my full adhesion to it.
The arguments of those who have spoken against the Bill have all been made because they see the truth of what I am saying and prefer another course. The analysis of the right hon. Member for Down, South was correct. I am A committed European, and it is on the basis of that analysis that I support the Bill.
My overriding concern is to get the Bill passed as soon as possible. That is the prime objective. The method of election, though important, is of comparatively little interest. I should prefer the first-past-the-post system at the first election. An elected Assembly will determine the mode of election for future occasions, and there is no valid reason why, on the first occasion, we should abandon the system that has stood us in good stead for many years and is known and understood by all the people who


make up the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall go forward to the elections in May 1978 on the basis of the first-past the-post system.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) has reiterated the point that has been made by many other hon. Members. It has been made clear that once the directly-elected European Assembly is in existence, its powers will be developed. The SNP spokesman pointed out that once Members of the Assembly were directly elected they could not be expected to sit around doing nothing; they would demand work, and that would mean extra powers because there is no point in doing something just for the sake of doing it. They will want control.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said that we should have democratic checks, but that means that the Assembly must have power. Without powers, there are no democratic checks. The logic is that, once the new Assembly is in existence, the impetus will come from the Members and there will be demands for more powers to be given to the Assembly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: From whom will they demand the powers but from the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Heffer: Of course they will demand them from the Council of Ministers. They will argue that such powers are necessary because they are responsible to the people who elected them. The Council of Ministers, who, in a sense, will be elected by the same people, will be influenced by those representations. We all know what happens here when our local authority wishes us to do something. We ignore it at our peril. There will be a similar situation in Europe. The Council of Ministers will ignore the elected representatives at the peril of their political futures in national institutions.
There is no doubt that once the new Assembly is in existence the Members will demand greater powers, and stage by stage they will be introduced. Some hon. Members are very honest about it and admit that this is what they want.
Here lies the fundamental division. Some hon. Members want an overall Government for the whole of Europe with directly elected Members, while others of us say that it is essential to remain with our national Parliaments.
We had many of these arguments in July. In a sense we are going over the same ground again, but two things have happened within the Labour Party since that time. We have had a party conference, and the Prime Minister has written to the National Executive Committee. These were both interesting and significant events.
I should like to point out to my hon. Friends who are passionately concerned with the Common Market that the Labour Party has had debates, arguments and even a special conference on this question. Decisions have been made by the membership through the party conference. There was no question of something on the subject of the Common Market being slipped into the party manifesto three weeks before the General Election. This is a matter on which there has been the fullest and broadest discussion for many years.
I say to my pro-Market friends that there is a significant difference between the situation in relation to this Bill and the situation in relation to devolution. The subject of devolution was not put before the party conference until the legislation had been discussed in the House.
I thank the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for quoting part of the statement put before the 1976 Labour Party conference. This year the conference had another statement, an up-to-date statement entitled "The EEC and Britain", which was presented by the party's National Executive. The statement said:
Our objective is to work towards the creation of a wider but much looser grouping of European States—one in which each country is able to realise its own economic and social objectives under the sovereignty of its own Parliament.
The Labour Party regards that as a very clear statement. I must say to a number of my hon. Friends that we should not ignore what our party conference decides by an overwhelming vote.
On the subject of direct elections, the statement said:
The Labour Party has voiced its opposition to direct elections and the inherent move to


federalism on many occasions. We reiterate, yet again, our opposition to direct elections. We acknowledge, as we must, that there is now the prospect of elections actually taking place—
because of what happened in the House in July—
and we do not wish to let the mounting feeling of dissatisfaction with the EEC go unrepresented at the Strasbourg Assembly. But if we are to represent this feeling certain basic conditions must be fulfilled.
Four or five conditions are laid down. One is that
legislation providing for direct elections must include clauses expressly preventing any increase or changes in the powers of the Assembly.
That point has been made repeatedly by hon. Members today and is clearly the position of the Labour Party.
I find it very sad that I have to argue the Labour Party case from the Back Benches when it should be argued from the Front Benches. It is very sad that the Government decided to ignore the wishes of the party and almost pretend that the party had never made these decisions at two party conferences. It has been said that we are committed, but to what are we committed? The previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), stated that he would use his "best endeavours", nothing more.
There was nothing in our manifesto in October 1974 about direct elections. The commitment that we gave to the people of this country in that manifesto was that we would ask them whether they wished to remain in or come out of the Common Market on the basis of the renegotiations. I often ask my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, in relation to devolution, "What about the manifesto commitment?" I put the same question to them in relation to direct elections. We are not committed in any way to direct elections.
My hon. Friends have said that in the literature which went out in the name of the Government and the pro-Market forces during the referendum campaign there was no reference to direct elections. I shall now refer to the actual letter that the Prime Minister sent to the National Executive of the Labour Party. It was a very interesting letter, and I am not surprised that some of the Foreign Ministers of the Common Market were not very happy about it.
My right hon. Friend stated:
I am in no doubt that there are policies which do not work in our interests or may work counter to our concepts of how Britain and Europe should develop.
He goes on to say that there were six key elements in the whole future of the Community. They included:
Maintenance of the authority of national governments and parliaments; democratic control of Community business; common policies must recognise the need for national governments to attain their economic, industrial and regional objectives.
That runs counter to the whole concept of the unitary system, which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has pointed out is part of the Treaty of Rome. Other key elements were:
Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; the development of a Community energy policy compatible with national interests".
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is not present, because she referred to Scottish oil. If the Commission gets hold of that oil, it will not be Scottish oil and it will not be our oil either. That is why we have to make certain that we can keep control of our national interests.

Mr. Hamish Watt: rose

Mr. Heffer: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has only just come into the Chamber, and other hon. Members who wish to speak have been waiting for a long time.
There is a reference to direct elections in the Prime Minister's letter, but it is only a tiny sentence:
Provided we are ready to fulfil the obligations of membership we have undertaken, for example, in the matter of direct elections, our general stance could bring no accusations of lack of co-operation.
That is the only reference to direct elections.
I find it very strange that the Opposition should have imposed a three-line Whip to support a Government Bill. We in the Labour Party have a two-line Whip. It would not matter to me if it were a three-line, four-line or five-line Whip. I shall be voting according to the decision of the Labour Party conference. I also happen to believe in that decision. That is why I shall be voting for it. I hope that my hon. Friends will also be voting for the decision of the Labour Party


conference, and I trust that Opposition Members who believe that it is wrong for us to go ahead with direct elections will also vote with us on this issue and not be guided by their three-line Whip.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), as I always do, and I agreed with much of what he said. In a way he is my favourite revolutionary in the House, because, although he sometimes expresses the most disagreeable sentiments, one knows that his heart is sound and that basically he is a true patriot.
We are debating this Bill between debates on the Scotland Bill, and I am sorry that so many of my hon. Friends who are opposed to the Scotland Bill are not also opposed to this Bill. I cannot see and have not heard anything this afternoon to explain how they can attempt to uphold the United Kingdom Parliament in the one instance without doing the same in the other.
The House will know that I have always supported the concept of the EEC. I have always seen it as a grand alliance of nation States. I felt the same way about it as did de Gaulle, Adenauer and Churchill. I believe that the EEC underpins NATO and is essential for the survival of our western civilisation. Where I part company from my colleagues—not all of them—is in their acceptance of this Bill, which, in my view, is premature, to say the least, and is not yet really necessary for the development of the Community.
My objection to the Bill is fundamental and can be stated very simply. I want this House to be represented at the highest level of influence in the Community by a Minister who is in this House and is accountable to it. That is a logical and sensible arrangement. Hon. Members on both sides have said that an elected European Assembly will not be content with its present limited powers, although these have been slightly increased recently, and that, by virtue of being democratically elected, it is bound soon to claim further powers. That is the lesson of history, from the oath on the tennis court in France before the revolution up to the present day.
The European Assembly, having received greater powers, will, I believe, inevitably start to bypass this Parliament and thereby almost immediately greatly reduce our own authority and influence. I do not want that to happen. I was not sent here for it to happen. It offends my sense of history and and my sense of patriotism, and I shall be surprised if it does not also offend many of my colleagues in my party, which is, after all, the national and patriotic party of this country. I am not yet ready for such a sudden and severe change in the British constitution.
Nor do I believe that the British public at large yet understand what this Bill is going to do—indeed, very few know that it is being debated today. When they do understand its implications, they will not like them.
I believe that some of my more overenthusiastic European colleagues, to whose sincerity I pay tribute, have been tactless and over-hasty in espousing the European idea and trying to merge our Britishness in some vague European mess of pottage. I am not prepared to give up our constitutional heritage, which has been so dearly bought over the centuries. One cannot simply throw away all our history as if it had never happened.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Are the French any the less French because they are in the Common Market? We are not the less English because we are in the Common Market.

Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend is going ahead of me. I am coming to that point. Our development has been in many ways different from that of the other nations in Europe. Some of them have a very short history indeed—for example, Italy, which a century ago was a mere geographical expression. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know their Metternich as well as I do. Other nations, like Germany, wish to forget their history and are only too happy to merge themselves in some new amorphous body. But France remains as nationalistic as ever, and I believe that her foreign policy has a great deal to teach us and to teach our Foreign Secretary.
It is not only the future development of the European Assembly which will put our Parliament's nose out of joint. The


new Assembly Members from this country will soon become much more important and significant than our Members here and, of course, so well paid that we shall be poor relations, if not beggars, by comparison with them. Hardly anyone in the debate has attempted to work out what the relationship will be between these new Members and ourselves.
Someone was kind enough to suggest to me, knowing my well-known love for the other place, that I could both be a Member of the European Parliament and be in the other place at the same time. I would not be in favour of that, but it is at least a suggestion. I have heard no suggestions at all about the way in which we shall operate with these other Members.
I do not believe that at first people will pay much attention to the new Members, and I believe that the poll will be very low. But I also believe that, gradually, their influence is bound to increase and we shall find constituents no longer coming to us but going to the great European Members who are constantly near Brussels, where the levers of power will be. They want to go to the persons who will have a say, and, in the end, if we pass this Bill, the say will go from here to the European Parliament.
I fear that if we pass this Bill and the Scotland and Wales Bills, this House will shortly be reduced to the status of a county council. I know that some hon. Members may want that, or may tolerate it, but I was not sent here for that purpose. I hope that I still have some red blood in my veins. If we pass this Bill, we shall be bleeding this ancient House to death.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) in debate. For one thing, particularly in this debate, we all know his position. We know his point of view. No one can doubt what his position is in a debate that is marked by ambiguities and uncertainties as to the position of so many Members at the end tonight.
A curious change has come over Parliament in the last few months. I used to know the House, both as a young Member and as a visitor in the Strangers Gallery, as a place where people had their say and everyone knew what they would

do in the Division at the end of the debate Now, one has to be a Philip Marlowe to know what Members will do when the debate ends. One needs an apparatus of intelligence to find out what position they will adopt.
We have had debates and votes on devolution, and I have found it hard to discover anyone in the House, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and of the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who really supports the devolution Bills. They give one all sorts of reasons why they will vote for them. I must not waste the time of the House in rehearsing those reasons, but they have very little to do with the support for devolution that they expressed in the Lobby. In this debate, we are to have the strange spectacle, so I am told, of quite a number of members of Her Majesty's Government, some of them outstanding members of it, not voting against the Bill although they are totally opposed to it. That, to me, is an amazing occurrence.
But how is debate in the country to be carried forward? How is the message to get through to the electorate about what Members really feel about this Bill if the report after the Division tonight is completely blurred? There will be people abstaining who are against it. There will be people voting for it who would prefer to abstain. There will be people professing to be great Europeans when they are nothing of the kind—including many right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Will the Opposition Front Bench represent, at the end of the debate tonight, the point of view of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge? Not at all. But who is to tell us that the hon. Gentleman does not represent as many Conservatives and their real deep feelings in the country as his Front Bench? Any hon. Member who has the honesty to admit it will know that I am only stating what is common sense. There has been no attempt to find out.
A fairly senior member of the Conservative Party in Wales wrote to me because he wanted to write to someone who supports his point of view in opposition to the Bill. Things have come to a pretty pass in our political life if senior Conservatives have to write to me to have their point of view represented, but


this has happened, and after I had sent him a courteous and appropriate reply, as we always do, he sent me another letter six weeks later, when the preparations were going on for the annual conference of the Conservative Party. He said:
I must express to you both my thanks for your kind and courteous reply and equally my profound disapointment with my own party organisation, because every attempt I have made to have a proper motion against direct elections to the European Parliament Assembly debated at our annual conference has been ruled out of order by the Standing Orders Committee of my party.
That is the truth. The only way in which that gentleman can express his point of view is by speaking in his area, but never by speaking at the policy-making body of his own party.

Mr. John Ellis: They do not deny it.

Mr. Mendelson: They do not, because it is true, and many Conservative Members who have had this experience themselves know it much better than I do. But it applies to both sides of the House. I exempt the Liberals, but I shall come to them in a moment. As far as——

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I am not saying anything about the hon. Member far Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I shall not be personal, because I never am, but I shall come to the Liberals and their interest in this legislation.
We are moving towards the time, about an hour from now, when the speakers from the two Front Benches will be saying roughly the same thing on tile basic issue before us. They will engage in some shadow boxing as to who might be blamed if the elections do not take place next year. That is all they will do. There will be no real debate at the end. They will then call upon right hon. and hon. Members to go into the Lobbies and to make their decision.
I had the profound privilege, as a very young man, of having a seat in the Strangers Gallery on 7th and 8th May 1940. I remember that momentous debate. I heard Admiral Sir Roger Keyes making a speech in that debate. Young Service men, who had returned from the

front in Norway, also spoke in the debate. I saw what is meant then to have a clear indication, right or wrong, of how hon. Members felt, whether it was their Government or not, about a great issue. Tonight we shall see the opposite of that, and it is a sad decline for the House of Commons that a decision of this kind should be taken in that sort of atmosphere.
I give no advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government. I would not have the presumption to do so. They must make up their own minds. What I do know is that I would not wish to vote against my real political opinion, or abstain, on an issue of this importance.
This debate is the conclusion of a debate which, though not a very long one, has gone on for some time. Certainly it is not very long in the terms in which the late Hugh Gaitskell spoke about the substance of the matter that we are debating today. It is no minor matter to argue whether this is the first step towards the incorporation of the United Kingdom into a European State.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) made light of this. That did not surprise the House. She wants to destroy the United Kingdom anyhow. Therefore, any step in that direction is welcome to her, in spite of all the subterfuge of the argument with which she treated the House. I was not surprised when she kept asking rhetorical questions, and when she said "I cannot see" and "I cannot understand". The hon. Lady is much more intelligent than that. She understands only too well and she likes what she understands. It is a curious fact that the Government's purposes and the purposes of the Opposition Front Bench were mainly supported by the hon. Lady. There was very little support from anywhere else for what the two Front Benches are preparing for us.
The reasons are obvious. The Government have announced, through my hon. Friend the Minister of State, that they are refusing to incorporate in the Bill a clause which has been demanded by many of us on both sides of the House. It is of great interest in this context that the Assemblee Nationale, not on a minor amendment from the Back Benches but on a motion in the name of the Prime Minister, M. Barre, came to a decision as a result of which the French Republic


is now legally prevented, in clear and precise terms, from accepting at any time in the future any extension, either directly or indirectly, of the powers of the European Parliament. The framing of the clause was not such as to enable the French Parliament to decide at some future time whether to accept any such extension. Any such charge is in fact declared in advance to be ultra vicesin perpetuity. No answer has been forthcoming as to why our Government are refusing to do the same.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), from the Opposition Front Bench, demanded that a commitment should be given that an Act of Parliament should be introduced. Even that is not quite clear. Why, then, is there this curious reluctance to be definite on the occasion of this Second Reading? To those who may say that we cannot have in our legislation any reference to perpetuity, I maintain that we could put into the Bill a clause making it impossible for any extension of powers, directly or indirectly, to take place without a special Act of Parliament being passed in this House. This could well be done under the constitution and procedure of the House of Commons. But the Government did not want to do it. They want the uncertainty of the position. For what reason? The shady pretence is that this Bill is wanted merely to make more democratic the work and representative character of the future Members of the European Parliament. But that argument falls down on this precise point.
No one in the European Parliament today would agree if it were suggested that the powers will not be extended once it becomes a directly-elected Parliament. Everyone is honest about that except the people here who recommend the Bill. No one in public life in Europe will deny that the purpose is the extension of the powers of the newly-elected Parliament. If we can persuade them that the British Government will at all times in future oppose any such extension of powers, I am convinced that they will drop the whole project. They will see it as a waste of time. That is the real position. It is, therefore, a matter of very great importance.
I want to say one thing about the electoral system. Here I come to the

Liberal Party. The House will remember that in an earlier debate the Liberal Party was challenged on the electoral system. One of its right hon. Members, who is not now present, said in plain terms that if the Liberals could not get PR into the legislation he would not be interested in the whole project of direct elections to the European Parliament. Although that right hon. Member has tried to move away from that statement ever since, that is the real position of the Liberal Party. It is a manoeuvre for domestic political purposes. That is what the Liberals are interested in. Their purpose is continuous coalition government. Those of us who are opposed to continuous coalition government feel that it would be better for the British people to be led by the Government of one party or the other so that people clearly know what is at stake.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Our purpose quite simply is fair representation of political opinion in this country.

Mr. Mendelson: I have said enough about it, and I do not want to spend more time on this, but I am convinced that there is a clear majority in this House against PR. There will be occasions during the Committee stage to give more reasons why we are against it.
Whatever the blurring of the result tonight, there will be enough hon. Members opposing the Bill to show the country that support for it is very limited and that the battle continues.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: At the outset of my remarks I want to deal with one matter which has been a recurring theme in the debate—the suggestion that somehow the United Kingdom is bound by treaty to agree to direct elections. That is manifestly not the case.
Article 138.3 of the Treaty of Rome states that
The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
But the Treaty was signed 20½ years ago, on 25th March 1957. Is it really suggested that the six founder members of the Community have been in continuous breach of the Treaty of Rome because it has taken them 20 years or more to agree


to direct elections? If they are now arguing that we must have direct elections and that we have no choice in the matter, that assertion in itself is a most obvious example of a surrender of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament.
The words in Article 138 have been ignored for 20 years. At best, they are declaratory only—rather like Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The late Clause 1.

Mr. Gow: The late Clause 1. Although this debate takes place on a Bill to authorise additional future General Elections in the United Kingdom it is, in fact, about a more fundamental issue, namely, what ought to be the economic, political and constitutional relationship of the United Kingdom and this House to the Community and its institutions?
I voted "Yes" in the referendum of June 1975. I advised my constituents to vote "Yes" as well. But in the two years and more that have passed since June 1975 it has become increasingly clear that there is a significant, and, I believe, growing difference of view between my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and myself—a difference between those who, like myself, want to see the Community develop as a loose grouping of sovereign nation States and those who, like some of my hon. Friends, favour a move towards economic and monetary union—a move towards a federal Europe.
I am an unashamed Gaullist. To me, Europe de patrieshas always been an ideal. To that extent I am an enthusiastic European, in the much misused sense of that greatly abused word. I want to see the nine nations that make up the Community today co-operating to the maximum where it is in the mutual interest of those member States to co-operate. I want to see, as far as possible, the free movement of people, goods and capital within the member States. I want to create, as far as possible, a genuine free trade area. I am in favour, wherever it suits the United Kingdom, of its co-operating, in matters of foreign policy and defence, with the sister nations on the mainland of Europe.
I believe that the nation States of Europe ought to preserve their own

identify and that any attempt to impose upon their peoples an enlarged supranational Parliament and an enlarged supra-national Government will be deeply resented. Over the past decade our own Government and Parliament have not been so successful that the people are clamouring for more. Nor have we even in this House been so successful over the past 10 years that people are calling for still greater intervention in their lives. On the contrary, there is, sadly, a great and growing gulf between people and Parliament, between Government and the governed. If Westminster and Whitehall seem remote, the gulf will not be bridged by advising the people to take their grievances to Luxembourg or to Strasbourg.
The Bill makes a vital, important constitutional change and, in my opinion, a change in what is fundamentally the wrong direction. In place of 36 United Kingdom Members of the European Assembly we are to have 81. Instead of a total of 198 Assembly Members there are to be 410. I predict that pressure will grow for the size of this already enlarged European Assembly to increase still further. It is inevitable that this new Assembly, more than doubled in size, clothed with the authority, real or imagined, of direct elections, will demand more power. That power can be granted or seized only at the expense of the authority and responsibility of this House.
The Bill envisages a constitutional change of the most fundamental kind that has ever come before this Parliament. For the first time ever we are contemplating a General Election—and more than one; a continuous series of General Elections—to elect a Parliament in which the United Kingdom will be in a permanent minority and which is intended to be a superior authority to the authority of the House.
Our country is a member of many international bodies. We are a member of the United Nations. We are a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It has never been suggested that our representatives at the United Nations General Assembly or our representatives at the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should be elected directly by our people. On the contrary, those who represent us at the General Assembly or at the Council of NATO are appointed


—rightly, in my view—by the Government of the day. But this proposed new Assembly is vitally different.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to look at the way in which we have built up our constitutional structure in the United Kingdom. It is a curious but well-tried anomaly. The lower down the scale of the administration, the greater is the degree of representation. Let me illustrate what I mean. Part of my constituency is composed of the borough of Eastbourne. The electors of that borough send 30 members to the borough council. They send nine members to the county council. They send one Member to this House. They will send one-seventh of one Member to the European Assembly. That means that the representation of an elector in this country is in inverse proportion to the assumed importance and power of the layer of government that we envisage.
Thus, it is not surprising that within the United Kingdom as it is constituted today this House, which has a smaller representation per elector, should be about to confer and agree to a still smaller representation, which implies a superior authority at the new Assembly.
Those who doubt that more power will be demanded by the proposed new Assembly have only to look at the propaganda of the European Parliament itself. The London office of the European Parliament's secretariat issued a certain document as long ago as January of last year, saying that Parliament's—not this Parliament's but the European Assembly's—
powers are likely to be steadily extended in the future.
Those are not the words of some unknown Back Bencher from a seaside resort in Sussex; they are the words of the European Parliament's official document.
I fear that the creation of a powerful new supranational Parliament in whose train there will come a new and powerful bureaucracy will create a growing burden for the people of Europe. The electoral arrangements envisaged in the Bill will be virtually meaningless to the British electorate and are likely to mean a totally unreal relationship between European Assemblyman and elector in this country.
Perhaps I am a romantic. The future of Britain is of supreme importance to this House. I still believe that the United

Kingdom can save itself by its own exertions and Europe by its own example.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: In his eloquent speech, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) pointed out the dangers of the advance towards a federal or supranational State, or perhaps a unitary State, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. The pressure already exists. I serve on the Scrutiny Committee, and the amount of legislation that that Committee examines that should be passed by the individual countries, whatever its merits, is remarkable. It is obvious that in the Commission there is already pre-sure to advance towards a federal, supranational or unitary State.
Apart from the extension of the powers of the Assembly and an advance towards a supranational State, I cannot conceive that direct elections make any sense. They are a piece of complete nonsense if they are examined from a practical point of view.
It is said—it is a most impudent claim —that the Members elected by direct elections for constituencies of half a million people are more democratic than the present process, which is nomination by the House. That is a piece of nonsense. The Member who is elected will have little contact with his electors. That contact is precluded by the size of his electorate. If a system of proportional representation is adopted, whatever its merits, the Member's connection with his electorate will be even more diffuse.
Comparatively few will vote in the elections. What is even more important, those who vote will not know for what they are voting or about what they are voting. How many Members of this place of any of the three parties can come forward to tell me what will be the issues between party and party at the forthcoming direct elections, if they come? I do not know any Member who can tell me that.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the assertion that is so often put forward—namely, that the division will be along the party lines that we have in this place? Might it not be, for instance, that the division will be between those who want a federal Europe and


those who want a Europe of nation States? Such an issue might easily totally divide the two great parties in this place.

Mr. Silverman: That might be possible. The division might be one of party labels. It might be between those who want an extension to federalism and those who do not, or it might be on purely national lines. Many of the issues before both the Assembly and the Scrutiny Committee are on national lines. Surely it is impossible to define the issues that will come before the electorate.
The members of the public who vote on these issues will have no idea what they are voting about apart from the party labels. However, they will not know what the party labels mean. To suggest that this is a form of democracy is complete nonsense. There is no democracy if we are to have large electorates with the electors having no contact with their candidates, or, at any rate, little contact. The electors will be voting on issues that they do not understand. To suggest that this is democracy is a piece of nonsense
It is suggested that the Member of Parliament nominated from this House under the present system has too heavy a burden to bear. I admit that it is a heavy burden. The Members spend one week in Luxembourg, for instance, and then return to this place to come down to earth. On the whole, I believe that they perform their functions in Europe reasonably well within the limits of their functions. When they return to the House and their constituencies, they find out what is happening in this country and ascertain how that fits in with the legislation with which they are faced while in Europe.
Upon the basis of that, and only that, they have to be in a position to perform a reasonbly competent function. That will not be available to Members who are elected in direct elections. They will have no contact with this Parliament. It has been suggested that there should be some sort of institutional function by which they meet members of this Parliament. It will not work. It is not working adequately even at present when we haw our own nominated Members, and I can see a considerable gulf between the people who go there as directly-elected Members under this so-called democratic process

and the Members of this House who are dealing with the problems of this country.
They will have little contact with the Executive. The Community is a very peculiar sort of animal. It has legislative functions but no executive functions. Those executive functions are performed for it by the Executives of the constituent States. The Commission is not, as some people suggest, some form of executive. It is simply a part of the Community legislative process.
For example, Members of this House are frequently in contact with the Executive, either directly or through the Ministers responsible, to redress the grievances of their constituents or to acquire the information which is essential if they are to function properly as public representatives. At present there is no provision for any sort of organisation or institution that will create that function for the directly-elected Members. They will be in a sort of limbo, with little connection with their constituents, little connection with Parliament here and little connection with the Executive which performs functions and administers legislation in this country which they are supposed to carry out on behalf of the Community.
In the light of that, I cannot for the life of me see that this provision makes any sense in practical terms. It is a piece of nonsense, and the only way in which it can conceivably make sense is if it is intended, as I believe it is, to be an advance towards increasing federalism or the creation of a unitary State in Europe.
I believe, although this is repudiated by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the founders of this idea had that one in mind. Article 138 of the Treaty had this eventual idea in mind. There are arguments for a unitary State, although I am not convinced about it. If, however, that is the object, and I believe that it is, it should be discussed upon that basis. I therefore intend to vote against the Bill tonight.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Such are the divisions of opinion across the House on this subject that I rise to speak having heard the four previous


speakers state their opposition to the Bill. I am a keen supporter, but I share with those four hon. Members their opinion on the great significance of the measure. There has been wide agreement on that at least throughout the House, except among Ministers and those who introduced the legislation at the earlier stage.
I see direct elections as a step towards a much more powerful European Parliament with more significant powers. I see the development of that Parliament as an essential step towards a more unified Europe organised as a stronger political union. Some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was the last—have recoiled in shocked horror upon finding this. In fact, all those who have campaigned in favour of entry to the community and its development have always acknowledged that some loss of sovereignty, which we find acceptable, is involved for the United Kingdom. Certainly there must be a pooling of sovereignty with and a creation of new sovereignty for the European Parliament if it is to be effective.
I agree with the analysis of where we are going, put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I do not need to reiterate it.
To keep referring to those in favour of a more unified Europe as federalists is a misnomer. I do not approve of federal constitutions for the United Kingdom, the EEC or any other body. A stronger political union has often been asserted as the aim, and it is one to which I adhere. I should have thought that, given that the strongest supporters and the strongest opponents of this measure are agreed on where it is going and what it is aimed at, those who are against the Bill can give us credit for the fact that one of the prime aims of those who want to see a stronger European political union is to strengthen the democratic institutions of a unified Europe to ensure that parliamentary democracy remains at the core of the whole thing.
As more pooling of sovereignty takes place between the member States in those important areas which have a European dimension—economic and monetary policy, trade policy and industry policy—it is essential that the decision-making bodies of the Community should be pro-

perly answerable to democratically directly-elected representatives of the peoples of the various member States.
I do not foresee any situation in which it will be adequate for the Council of Ministers and the Commission to be answerable to a nominated European Assembly and to the nine individual national Parliaments of the member States. We are all agreed that scrutiny in this House is poor and could be improved. However, it will not be an effective parliamentary scrutiny of the legislative powers of the Council of Ministers. Our British Minister will always answer here, but the Council of Ministers as a body needs to be answerable to another body which will be able to take a general European view of the issues involved and also have some democratic legitimacy.
I can understand the tactics of Ministers who say that nothing of this kind is contemplated and that this Bill is a minor technical change to our present position. The majority of 247 on Second Reading in the last Session is perhaps regarded as somewhat fragile by Ministers. But I think that the short-term tactics are a little dangerous because they may lead to allegations of ill-faith in future. I foresee the European Assembly acquiring legislative and other more significant parliamentary powers than it has now. I am sure that if the Minister does not say more about that, he will give us plenty of time to develop these ideas in Committee.
I should like to turn to the immediate problems of the directly-elected Parliament that we are contemplating in the Bill. I begin with what may seem to be a silly, small point compared with others, but I suggest that it will be trouble some politically. I refer to the salaries that are expected to be paid to directly-elected Members of the European Parliament. We in this House would no doubt put this problem in context alongside all the other constitutional problems, but I can see a substantial political stick being handed to those who are against the Assembly. This matter will loom out of all importance to others unless it is dealt with straight away.
Visions are being conjured up of Members of the new Assembly having the pay of a Member of the Bundestag without paying the atrocious levels of British tax that we pay. The job will


no doubt be attractive for that, among other reasons, and may attract candidates not solely attracted by political reasons. It is silly for those who support direct elections to the Assembly not to deal with that matter at a fairly early stage. I should like the British Government to insist, for example, that the pay should be equivalent to the pay of a Member of the national Parliament of the member State from which he comes.
The method of election is a more substantial matter. I strongly prefer the first-past-the-post system. I have already indicated at sufficient length that I want these newly directly elected Members to have some authority and status. I also want the process of electing them to help dramatise the politics of Europe and to bring those politics closer to the individual electors through the campaign atmosphere. I see no way in which the regional list system will have the effect of dramatising elections or of giving the status that I prefer.
To take a parochial example, I prefer to see a campaign for one European Member of Parliament for Nottinghamshire, much though I regret that that would be a Labour Member in most foreseeable circumstances. To face my electors with a ballot paper for a region that will stretch from Grimsby to Kettering and have on it the names of 60 candidates with the requirement to choose five, and to imagine that that is either an interesting or an immediate election process, or that it will produce Members with whom the electors will maintain direct contact afterwards, is wrong.
My only other argument at this stage about the electoral system is this. I have heretical views compared with those of many who share my opinion on the first-past-the-post system. I am by no means sure that the method of the first election will not be the method that is adopted for the second election and thereafter. I see no reason why we should necessarily find ourselves having to be exactly in step with other members of the Community or to move to be in step later. We abandoned that idea to get to direct elections at all. We should never have had direct elections if the members of the Community had continued discussing an attempt to get a common system of elections. It was only when member Governments became resigned to the fact that

there was no great hope of agreeing on that that they moved to agreement to hold direct elections at all. I am sure that my strong views on the development of Europe do not include an insistence that we ought to harmonise ourselves with Europe in the way that we elect Members. We should use the democratic method best suited to ourselves.
My last point relates to the time at which the Bill is to get on the statute book, if it ever does. The Government's best endeavours to get the Bill have been pathetic, and the present lack of urgency indicates that they do not want the measure in a hurry, if they want it at all. The Prime Minister said on the last occasion that it would not be the end of the world if the elections were not held in 1978. It might not be the end of the world, but it would do great damage.
It is not only that I want to see direct elections in the bag. I want to see the standing of this country improve as a member of the EEC. I want to see this country having the influence and respect in the Community that it ought to have. We have lost that influence and respect by the pointless process of renegotiation, the foolish referendum and the way in which we have at all times cast serious doubts on the commitment of this country to those obligations of honour and the Treaty that we undertook when we joined.
At some stage, if the Bill is to get on to the statute book, there will have to be a guillotine providing generous time for debate, to ensure that there is still a chance of getting into the position when we can say to others in Europe that we shall not be the one member country that is responsible for delay. If that time comes, I hope that the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who support the Bill in principle will support the necessary resolution to get it on to the statute book.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: When several authorities within a State are derived from the same franchise, it is my view that power rises to the superior or higher authority. We have learnt this in the United Kingdom through local government, which has become deprived of powers by the central Government, and I believe that if we have a universal franchise for Europe that body will increase

>
its power at the expense of the House of Commons. Whether or not we like it, that will be the consequence.
I think that where additional power is claimed the legal facilities will be provided at a later date. While Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome would require ratification of any amendment in this House, I support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) that a clause should be introduced into the Bill to guarantee the position.
What the Government have not taken into account are the implications that are likely to arise from what is proposed. If there is a directly elected Assembly—and no doubt there will be one—we shall have, in addition to two volumes of statutes every year, and four to six volumes of Statutory Instruments a whole mountain of additional paper-work that will come out of the research lockers of the European Members of Parliament. That might be a necessary consequence.
I want to come straight to another implication and deal with the pay situation. I see some very dire consequences arising if the present differential between the Parliament at Westminster and its European counterparts remains in anything like the present form. There will be a drain of talent from Westminster in future years, with substantial impairment to the authority of the House of Commons.
Last Monday my hon Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked the Lord President if he would initiate a review of the salaries of Members of Parliament in comparison with those paid in Europe, and the answer was "No". The House may care to evaluate some of the salaries paid to the Members of other Parliaments.
In the United States parliamentarians receive £33.000 a year. In the European Parliament it is proposed to pay Members £25,000 a year, with an additional £10,000 in expenses and probably at low rates of tax. In West Germany the current salary is £20,700, with an additional £13,300 in tax-free expenses. In France it is £19,700 and in Canada £14,000.
I do not wish to dwell on this for too long, but I must point out to the Government that if salaries in this House remain lower than those in Europe there will be

a drain from this House, and people of lower calibre will remain here to deal with an immense amount of work.
There are 85 members of the staff of the House of Commons who receive salaries that are higher than ours. Of those who are on a par with us, there are 23 Senior Clerks, the Assistant Editors of Hansard, the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms and the Assistant Accountant. We receive the pay of a captain in the British Army. This is one of the implications of direct elections of which the Home Secretary should take account. It is a problem that he should solve long before the system comes into operation.
There has been no attempt by the Government to define and co-ordinate the nature of the relationship between Members of both Assemblies. In my judgment there could be confusion and conflicting policies. An illustration of this is what could happen in energy policy. A Member of this House may feel that oil in the North Sea should be used for our own purposes, with only limited exports to Europe. On the other hand, there could be good Europeans who feel that the oil should be made available to Europe in larger quantities if the Europeans are prepared to pay a commercial price for it. This could lead to entirely different views, depending on which side of the Channel the Member is standing.
The way around problems like this is to operate a dual-mandate system. This has been rejected in favour of Members of the Assembly being independent of this House and elected by the first-past-the-post or regional list systems. We have learnt no information this afternoon about any of Lord
Carrington's proposals or the possible position of the other place. What the Government—Labour or Conservative—must face is that the new electees for Europe will have no experience in this House. They will be shaped into an entirely different tradition and will respond to an advisory Assembly in an entirely different way.
Conflicts are likely to abound, because we will have another tier of general government sandwiched in, and this could lead to further problems. I suggest that in his closing remarks the Secretary of State should indicate the steps that he envisages to integrate the European Assembly with the House of Commons


in order to ensure that the policies advocated are not lost sight of when that Parliament considers them.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Paul Channon: At this hour of the night, I shall try to truncate my remarks. I am strongly in favour of the principle of this Bill. However, I have a number of questions which I hope the Home Secretary will answer when he replies to the debate. It is extremely important that the House should have frank answers to a number of questions that have arisen from the debate.
I have discovered throughout all my travels in Europe—they are not as extensive as those indulged in by some hon. Members, but they are extensive enough —that there is nobody in Europe who sees any chance that the Government will meet their target date for the elections of May-June 1978. I hope the Home Secretary will reply frankly to the following question: is it still a possibility that this date will be met? I very much doubt it.
We see from paragraph 30 of the White Paper, published in April this year, that in order to get the legislation through—this related to the first-past-the-post system—
the Boundary Commissions will need to complete their work by the end of 1977".
That must apply whether we have first-past-the-post or the regional system. I emphasise that in April this year the Government were saying that the legislation had to be through and the Boundary Commissions had to complete their work if we were still to meet the date of May 1978.
I am fortified in my view of the situation by evidence given by the Home Department to the Select Committee on Direct Elections to the European Assembly, when it first gave details of the date on which these matters should be completed. I refer the House to the evidence given on 22nd June last. The first timetable envisaged that the legislation would have to be through by the end of July 1977, but then, when the Home Office officials were pushed hard by the Committee, they said that provided the legislation was through by the end of February it might just be possible to meet the date.
Is the Home Secretary saying that he seriously expects this legislation to be through by the end of February? If so, will he let us know the exact timetable for his legislation?
We were told by the Minister of State, Home Office, that we would have an extended Committee stage, and I believe that the arguments that we have heard this evening show that that will probably be the case in practice. Nobody imagines that this Bill will get through Parliament with the minimum of discussion. Have the Government decided—it is their prerogative so to decide—that they will give priority to the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill before they give priority to this Bill? If that is the case, how can the timetable be met, whatever system of election is eventually agreed?
I contend that it will be wholly dishonest of the Government to pretend that if we go for one system of election we can get this Bill through in time but that if we go for a first-past-the-post system we shall not. I contend that, whichever system of election we adopt, we shall not get the Bill through in time. Would it not be correct for the Government, as they originally promised, to admit that that is the case and allow the House to have a free vote on the system of election, without a pistol being put at our heads and our being told that we can make the date only if we use one system of election rather than another?
Labour Members may be interested to know that the national agent of the Labour Party gave evidence to the Select Committee to which I have referred, and his views were particularly strong on this matter. He advised the Select Committee that it would be wrong to take a decision to change the electoral system, because other elections were taking place in 1978. He said:
I do not believe you can change the electoral system for elections taking place in this country for the European Assembly or in Europe without having some repercussions on the other elections.
I suggest that any Labour Member who votes for a regional list under the impression that that will have no repercussions elsewhere may be mistaken in the long run. That is for Labour Members to decide.
In my own party, it is clear that many Conservative Members do not support


the regional list system of voting and prefer to stick to first-past-the-post. Surely the situation that we should be putting to the Home Secretary, who has a reputation in this House as a fair man, is that since the Government have offered a free choice of the system of election for the European Assembly elections, we should have a free choice. Let nobody be put off by blackmail or by being told that this is the only way we shall get this system of election through Parliament. This is an extremely important matter, and we must be given a clear answer.
There are a minority of Members who believe that PR in one version or another is the best system for an election to the Westminster House of Commons. They are entitled to their point of view, and they may want such a system for the Scottish Assembly, too. They are entitled to hold that view, but I do not share it, and neither do many other hon. Members. This issue could be used wholly dishonestly by the Liberal Party. It could use this as the thin end of the wedge, because the Liberal Party's sole aim is to use this issue to get elections by proportional representation for Westminster. I urge hon. Members not to be fooled by that.
I ask the Minister to tell us tonight—the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) put this point very fairly earlier —what the Government's intentions are in the long run. When will the House decide the system of election? How will the timetable be met under either system, and why have we so far been kept wholly in the dark? I contend—and certainly everyone that I speak to in Europe agrees —that these elections will have to be put off until the autumn in any case. Many think that they could not be held before 1979. If so, will the Government be frank and tell us?
Some hon. Members agree with me that without a Speaker's Conference it would be quite wrong for us to rush into far-reaching constitutional reforms that would be carried out without proper consideration. We do that sort of thing all the time, with devolution and a host of other measures. It would be quite wrong for us to change our electoral system for Westminster unless an overwhelming majority in the House decided, on a genuinely free vote, to do that.
If we ever came to a decision to change to proportional representation—which I doubt—the particular system that the Government have put forward in the Bill would be the worst and the most inconvenient of all for the House of Commons. There would be far too much power in the regional divisions of our political parties, and although I have the strongest admiration for them I do not wish to give them that much power. I am glad that many hon. Members share my view.
What a farce it is to adopt a system of election in this country that would mean that if there were a by-election, the person chosen would simply be the next down the list, with no account being taken of the movement of public opinion.
This is a bad Bill, and I hope that the House will choose to go for the ordinary first-past-the-post system. I hope that tonight we shall have some answers before we vote. We should have a proper answer about the timetable with which the House is confronted, so that no hon. Member will vote without having had the truth put in front of him. I hope that tonight, at long last, the Government will come clean.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Hurd (Mid-Oxon): The debate has fallen neatly into two main subjects, of which the less important is the question of system and timing and the more important—upon which the House has rightly spent more time—relates to the powers of the Parliament and its relationship to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has made an impressive speech, and I should now like to spend some time on the matter of system and timing.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) set out his case in his usual courteous way. The role of the Liberal Party here is most important, and we shall hear more about it during the next few weeks, so it is worth analysing what the Liberal Party has been saying and doing. Its claims in this respect have been, to put it mildly, much more expansive than its achievements. Immediately after the Lib-Lab pact was created in March, the Liberal Party had an opportunity to persuade the Government to bring in a Bill early enough during that


Session to get it through. We do not know whether it tried to do that, but we do know that it did not succeed. The Liberal Party had another opportunity in the autumn when the priority for different Bills was discussed in connection with the Queen's Speech. We do not know whether it tried to get priority for this Bill then, but, again, it certainly did not succeed. This, however, is the key to the whole question of timing.
If the Government had come to the House in the debate on the Queen's Speech and said that, of all the measures in the Gracious Speech, this Bill would have priority and hon. Members would not be allowed home for Christmas until the Bill had become an Act, there would have been a chance of meeting the target date. As it is, they have given priority to the Scotland Bill and, heaven help us, the Wales Bill, and in so doing they have destroyed the last chance of Great Britain meeting the target date. I may be wrong, I hope that I am, but nothing that has been said in the debate has destroyed that idea. The Bill is having its Second Reading after the Scotland and Wales Bills, it will have one day in Committee next week and perhaps one more day before Christmas.
It is too late to argue now that only by voting for the regional list can we meet the target date. Most of the criticism deployed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) was against the Government, but by concentrating on the relatively trivial and secondary objective of the system to be used at the first elections the Liberals have connived at the delay.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In giving some attention, as was appropriate, to the method of election, we have not been concentrating on anything trivial. Secondly, the priority given to this measure in this Session is a primary priority, as I am sure that the Home Secretary would confirm.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's idea of primacy is different from mine. We have three main Bills this Session. One has had its Second Reading and two days in Committee, the second has already had a Second Reading and the third—this measure—has its Second Reading tonight. If the hon. Gentleman

is suggesting that the third Bill has primacy, I do not know what he is talking about.
I asked the hon. Member for Inverness during his speech to elaborate on what he thought about the regional list and the Government reaching the target date. Unfortunately he did not have time to reply, so I put the question again to the Home Secretary. If the House accepts the advice of the Government and the Liberal Party, how is it proposed to meet the target date with the regional list system?
Obviously, calculations have been made about the number of days needed in Committee, for Third Reading and in another place. A date must have been calculated for Royal Assent and some estimate made of the time required by Home Office officials, local authorities and political parties to hold the elections in an orderly and successful way. We are entitled to have answers to the questions that we have put.
There is no reason to suppose that the choice of the regional list system should rule out discussion of boundaries. There is nothing God-given about the boundaries of economic planning areas. They are not in the Domesday Book or Magna Carta. When my constituents wake up to find that they have been living all these years in the South-East Planning Area they will be startled and they will want Oxfordshire to be removed from this unnatural state. The idea that by choosing the regional lists we absolve ourselves from the argument over boundaries is unrealistic.
On the other side of the argument—the first-past-the-post system—the Home Secretary will have heard the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) about ways of operating the first-past-the-post procedure. In a moving passage, the Minister of State spoke earlier about the scars that the Home Secretary carries as a result of his efforts to write constituency boundaries into the schedule to the Bill.
In the last Parliament but two, when he was Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister was trying to impose boundaries against the will of the House. The hon. Member for Farnworth was talking about


a possible agreement on boundaries, which is a completely different proposition. I hope that the Home Office will show its proverbial openness of mind on this subject and, in the interests of speed and order, think again from now on about how it can operate a first-past-the-post system effectively, if that is the wish of the House.
The main part of the debate has rightly been concerned with the powers of the European Parliament and its likely development. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), as is his custom and probably his right, set the scene for the debate by painting once again his portrait of the Community to which we belong. The difficulty that many of us have over this portrait is that it is really a portrait painted by a painter working from a photograph taken a long time ago. The right hon. Gentleman's portrait is of the Community as it might have been, not as it has turned out to be.
There are and always have been people who thought that the Community would evolve relatively quickly towards an all-powerful unitary Executive and an all-powerful unitary Parliament. The right hon. Member for Down, South and many other hon. Members, particularly those below the Gangway on the Government side, constantly speak as if this has happened, but it has not. That process was stopped before we joined the Community by President de Gaulle, who reinforced and entrenched the powers of the nation State. The mantle of de Gaulle fell this evening on the worthy shoulders of my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow).
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was quite right to say that what was at stake in this debate was not the rather perfunctory measure which the Minister described but something which went to the core of our relationship with the Community. We both voted that we should remain in the Community. What we now have—as a result of the Treaty and of de Gaulle and the enlargement—is a partnership of States, each holding a veto in a Council of Ministers, which is the decisive organisation. Yet that Council is required and wishes to take decisions on a European level on a whole range of subjects. That is the point we have reached now, and it creates a real diffi

culty in the taking of decisions because nothing can be decided unless everyone agrees. It is to this problem that a directly-elected European Parliament will address itself, and I believe that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the argument who have predicted this are right.
The right hon. Member for Down, South emphasised again the difference between legal powers and political influence. He is right. We in this House have all the legal powers we could want, but we have—and we are conscious of this—a declining actual authority and influence, largely because of the foolish ways in which we organise ourselves. The European Parliament has some modest influence now in its nominated state, and it must be true that it will have substantially more influence when it is directly elected, leaving aside the question of legal powers. I believe that this is all to the good and should not be brushed over. It is an essential part of the case for direct elections. It is all to the good, because it will give our constituents a better chance of influencing the decisions which they, as well as we in this House, decide should be taken at a European level.
I have had two constituency cases in the past fortnight to illustrate this point. One was of a firm which was annoyed at the prospect of an EEC proposal which it thought might interfere with its operations. The other was of a school for the mentally handicapped which thought that it might be eligible for a grant from the EEC social fund. Such constituency cases will, when the Parliament is directly elected, go to the directly-elected Member of the European Parliament.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Did the hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents that the social fund of the Parliament is so tiny that even if one added it to the regional fund and the EAGGF fund the total would come nowhere near the size of the storage fund and the agricultural fund?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. I explained that when the voters had a directly-elected representative he would be able to argue about the size of the social fund. Such cases are coming up all the time, and when they are handled by a directly-elected Member he will not be taking


powers from me, as Member of Parliament for Mid-Oxon, because the Commission is not responsible to me in these matters. The constituent going to the directly-elected representative will simply be adding to the influence he may possess over decisions which could be affecting our future.
Secondly, I believe that the Parliament, when directly elected, will have a chance to improve the decision-making of the Community, which at present is slow and tortuous. We have had the case of Culham. The Council of Ministers was agreed on the project but argued for two dangerous years because its members could not agree where it should be sited. During that delay, the project nearly dissolved. That is an illustration among many of the necessary price we pay for having a partnership of States and not a unitary State.
I say "necessary price" because I am sure that we are not going to renounce the veto, and I am sure that no one is going to take it from us. The Community is, and is going to stay, a partnership of nation States which are not going to wither away. Rather, the problem of the whole Community is to make that partnership work better than it does today. The European Parliament, when directly elected, can play a major part in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hales-own and Stourbridge, whose sense of history informs everything he says in this House, used it to argue against the Bill and the building up of this partnership, but it is precisely because of the recent history of Europe, in all our countries, that many of us believe that the partnership is necessary and should be buttressed.
The real question is how the decision made in the referendum should be taken at a European level in a democratic, timely and effective way. I believe that the European Parliament, when directly elected, with its present legal powers but with the new political influence and authority it will have from being directly elected, will be able to improve the decision-making by shaming Ministers occasionally, when they deserve it, out of their present slowness and narrowmindedness.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it will have power and influence without responsibility, given to it by this legislation, and that Mr. Baldwin's famous dictum will therefore come into play?

Mr. Hurd: Mr. Baldwin was talking of Press Lords. We are talking of people who will be responsible to their constituents, by whom they will hope to be re-elected. There is all the difference in the world between the two propositions.
An illustration, given to the House originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), is that of the common agricultural policy. There has for a long time been a community of interest between consumers, say, in London, Hamburg and elsewhere—and, indeed, the efficient British farmer. That community of interest is simply not reflected in the decisions taken by the Council of Agriculture Ministers. But a directly-elected Parliament, actually representing these people and elected by them, will make it much less easy for the Agriculture Ministers to do what they did this year—that is, brush aside proposals for improvement. It will be much less easy for them to agree to price levels which are unrealistic and damaging.
The Members of the directly elected Parliament, because they will have to come and go and communicate with their constituents, and hope to be re-elected by them, will have an opportunity, which we, alas, have not got, of bringing to bear at the centre of the Community an influence for greater common sense and greater response to what people want.
I have tried not to over-egg the argument. I do not think that the sun will shine on everybody the day after we have direct elections, or that it will make all bad things in the Community good. The fact of the matter is, however, that direct elections will be a buttress for the Community, and because it will be a parliamentary buttress I think that it is one that we in this House should welcome. It is not Utopia, it will not solve all the problems of Europe, but it is a part—and, I think, a necessary part—of the next stage in the most hopeful experiment that we have seen in the modern history of Europe.

9.36 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): This is a most important piece of legislation. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right in that respect. Its importance is such that it has needed mature consideration. There needs to be insight and discussion about the implications of much that we are doing in this electoral field. At an earlier stage of the discussion there was talk of the influence of the extension of the franchise and the new developments in parliamentary government in the nineteenth century. which shaped our political system. For that reason alone, to go into a new form of government in Europe makes this Bill of the greatest importance when we take the step to having elected representatives.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) was right in what he said about the time that the Government have taken. It ought to be admitted on both sides of the House that there are differing views in both major political parties—

Mr. Stoddart: Did the secretary of State actually say that we were going into a new form of government?

Mr. Rees: What I said was that in the last century the development of the franchise influenced political parties. I was arguing that moving into a new structure of government would have an influence that we ought to think about carefully before moving forward. I believe that to be right.
I was moving on to the point that there are differing views on both sides of the House. In particular, there are differing views on the Government side. This has been so not for reasons of narrow party factious argument but because of the nature of the problem. It has been the same on the question of devolution, where there have also been disagreements. This has meant that the legislation put before the House has not been of the same nature as legislation that divides the House on economic matters, or other legislation where there may be degrees of emphasis that divide us. I do not apologise for that fact. When we are moving forward in this way it is right to try to get a consensus before eventually coming before the House.
I recall—as I am sure the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border does—the occasion in this House five years ago when we ended Stormont. At the time I supported it. I seem to recall that we moved to that decision rather quickly. I wonder whether we were right, and whether it was the right way to move. Certainly the first part of it was done with some speed. In retrospect, I think we might well have given longer consideration to that constitutional matter. The only point of my argument is that there has been delay. This is a most important measure. After all the problems that have arisen we now come to the vote on the matter of principle and afterwards the detailed discussion in Committee.

Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Gentleman cited the example of Stormont. We in this place will be as Stormont was and in due time we, too, could be ended as Stormont was ended.

Mr. Rees: I do not accept that argument. I turn first to the question of the regional list, which apparently is of such great concern to the House and to the Opposition [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Liberals."] And the Liberals. I was simply making the point that it mattered to people in this House. I defend completely the first-past-the-post system for this House, for devolution and for other forms of government in this country. That arises out of the nature of our Parliament and our responsibility here. I believe that it is important to preserve that fundamental nature of our role as Members of Parliament.
But the powers of the European Assembly are different. I do not want to see them very much different in the course of the years. The regional list system is appropriate for the European Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The European Assembly is not a Parliament, and I believe the regional list system is appropriate to that form of government.

Mr. Michael Spicer: How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly defend that position when it can produce in the North-West of England an electoral list of over 60 candidates? Can he tell us where this idea of a regional list first came from? Did it come from the Government or from the Liberal Party?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the regional list and the large number of candidates, but the problem arising with the first-past-the-post system is that a constituency of, say, 500,000 people will have only one man representing it. I am simply putting the argument. Hon. Members can vote on it. There is a free vote. I believe that the regional list system is appropriate.

Mr. Budgen: Before the Home Secretary leaves that argument, will he please explain to the House why the regional list system is appropriate for the European Assembly? He keeps repeating that it is appropriate but he does not explain why.

Mr. Rees: There is one basic argument. Where there are Members of Parliament forming a Government, I believe that our basic system is right. That is not the situation with regard to the European Assembly. We are not forming a Government out of the elected representatives, and I believe that a regional list system is appropriate for that form of government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the reasons that I have just given.
With regard to timing, if the regional list system is chosen, progress can be faster. The multi-member constituencies are specified in Schedule 3. Therefore, once the Bill has received the Royal Assent the political parties will know the final nature of the constituencies and can begin the selection of candidates immediately.
If the simple majority system is chosen a minimum of 18 weeks, as spelt out in the Select Committee report, will be required after Royal Assent for the truncated procedures provided for in Schedule 2 for the determination of the 78 single-Member constituencies. Clearly, the Boundary Commissions can do some preliminary work before Royal Assent, but not until the Bill is on the statute book will they have the formal authority to proceed. It should take them only a couple of weeks to produce their initial proposals. Most of the 18 weeks will be required for consideration and representations by the political parties and for the production and publication of new proposals by the Boundary Commissions.
It is in this context that I have to reply to the point made by my right hon. Friend

the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). They asked whether we can meet the "best endeavours" target of May-June. What matters with the first-past-the-post-system is the date of Royal Assent. The House will determine, by the speed with which it proceeds from next Thursday, whether we can meet that target. It is a relatively short Bill once it is divided—[Interruption.] There is nothing funny about that. Honourable Members who know the Bill will realise that it can be so divided once Clause 3 has been dealt with.
What matters is the date of the Royal Assent, which the House will decide. The Leader of the Opposition, when she was here earlier, asked that the first-past-the-post constituencies should be put into the Bill. She said that we could overcome the timing problems in that way. There is a difference, however, between taking three parts of the United Kingdom as a base and using the planning regions to draw up 81 constituencies. My Private Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), is a mathematician. I had him draw up 81 constituencies. If those constituencies were to be debated in this House—there are about nine constituencies joined together in each case—and if the matter were to be determined on the Floor of the House, we should be here until the Parliament after next, deciding which way to go.

Mr. Channon: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, rightly, that it is the date of Royal Assent that will determine matters, what priority do the Government intend to give to the Bill? Is it to have top priority? If not, is it not clear that it is impossible to meet the target date?

Mr. Rees: It will depend on the support given in the House. We shall see next Thursday. It may be that the Opposition—it is not a matter for me—will say that, unlike every other constitutional Bill that we have had, there ought to be a guillotine. That offer must be made not to me but to another place. Next Thursday will determine the progress that we shall be able to make.

Mr. Fernyhough: My right hon. Friend will remember that last year, when we were discussing the Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, the


other place decided to be very awkward. May it not be that the other place will be equally awkward about this Bill?

Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend is quite right; the other place is quite entitled to treat a measure as it wishes, and it has done so over the years. I have no doubt that it will proceed in that way. But the procedures of this House have to be gone through, and we shall see next Thursday the speed with which we can move on these matters.

Mr. Craig: The right hon. Gentleman has long passed the point that I wanted to raise. Accepting his argument that there is merit in a multi-Member constituency, can he explain why he decides on a regional system for the United Kingdom but will inflict STV on Northern Ireland if he does not gel the regional system?

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman and I have talked about these matters over the years, though not in this precise way. The argument which is put forward is that the House can decide that, just as in elections in Northern Ireland we have used a system of proportional representation because of the nature of Northern Ireland, it will go along with the view of the Government that, in the context of the EEC, with the first-past-the-post system any attempt to get a representative from the minority community into the discussions would be almost impossible. That is the reason why right hon. and hon. Members voted the way they did in the past for that sort of system in other forms of government in Northern Ireland. For no other reason was it done in that way.
A number of matters have been raised about the relationship between Members of the European Assembly and Westminster. There was a passage in the report of the Select Committee making three or four suggestions about how it could be done. In my view, this is a matter to which we shall have to put our minds and decide whether we want it in precise legislative form. To have one set of elected representatives going straight to Europe and another set of elected representatives here, we shall have to find, on a party or House basis, the means not necessarily of co-ordinating action but of contact between the two groups. In a way, this is related to this question of

parliamentary scrutiny of EEC legislation, which we shall be debating on Monday.
A number of hon. Members referred to the salaries of Members of the European Assembly. A number of figures have been discussed in the Press and elsewhere on a speculative basis. Some appear to come from a draft statute produced by a working party of the European Assembly, but this document has never even been debated by the Assembly. No decisions have been taken on the salaries of directly-elected Members. The Council of Ministers will certainly be involved in the determination of salaries.
It is the view of the Government that it would be wholly inappropriate for excessive salaries to be paid to directly elected Members of the European Assembly. We shall work with our Community partners in the Council of Ministers to promote an equitable solution to this problem before direct elections take place, and it may be that the House can offer a view on this as we proceed through the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful to hear the Government's view on that. Is it not true, however, that the European Assembly, or whatever organisation it is out there, has been discussing this matter for almost a year and a half? Is it not dragging its feet about this? Secondly, why were not we told by the Treasury whether the salaries, whatever they are, would be taxable? Presumably the Treasury has been debating that.

Mr. Rees: The view of the House will come out during the Committee stage. It will be for the Minister in Brussels to decide what shall be done. There is obviously a view that inflated pay should not be countenanced in this case.

Mr. Skeet: If the Germans and the French will not take less than they are receiving—and they will demand the same figure in the European Parliament—will not the right hon. Gentleman concede that the salaries in the English House of Commons should be comparable?

Mr. Rees: The view of the Government is quite clear: not more than 10 per cent.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the powers of the


Assembly and the possibility of future extensions. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State repeated the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given—namely, that it would need an Act of Parliament to give the European Assembly any further powers that would reduce the powers of this Parliament. It is the Government's belief that under the British constitution, under which no Parliament can bind its successor, an undertaking of that sort is the most effective restraint, especially as it is being supported by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border on behalf of the Opposition. The Government have noted the strength of feeling on this matter and they accept that it will be necessary closely to consider it.
I understand that there is a legal problem as regards the Royal Prerogative. I understand, too, that there is a problem about having two subjects in a Bill. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is his view that it would need an Act of Parliament to give the European Assembly any further powers. It is on that basis that the discussion in Committee can proceed.
There is to be no change in the power of the European Assembly as a result of this Bill. The Government have made it clear that they do not support federalism. In his letter to the National Executive of the Labour Party, my right hon. Friend said:
The Government has never accepted that the Community should develop into a federation. It is our policy to continue to uphold the rights of national Governments and Parliaments.
What we are debating is the method of choosing the Members of an existing body to exercise existing powers. The question to be decided tonight is whether

that should be by nomination or election. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands that alters the decision taken a few years ago to remain in the Market, or the views of the Government about the changed powers of the Assembly and its future development.

There are those, like the right hon. Member for Down, South, who believe that this measure by itself will promote a development leading towards the greater strength of the Community. I say to those who take that view that what matters in future in respect of the development of the EEC is what the national Governments want to make of it and what we in particular want, because it is the Members of this House who will decide what we wish to make of the EEC.

If we look back to the Treaty as it was in the 1950s and consider how we imagined it would develop and what the Founding Fathers thought it was going to be, it is clear that that has not happened. There are other countries that wish to come into the EEC. There are the developing views of the individual countries that are in the EEC. Those matters are not at issue tonight. They are not the issues in the Bill. What we shall be debating is whether the Members shall be elected or nominated. In other walks of life I much prefer someone to be elected than to be nominated, and it is on that that we shall have to base our case.

We are prepared, as we have been throughout, to use our best endeavours to get the Bill through. Those best endeavours will be stultified only by the attitude of the Members of this place. It is for the House of Commons to decide. The Government's view is that the Bill should be supported.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second Time:—

The House divided: Ayes 381, Noes 98.

Division No. 20]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Baker, Kenneth
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Alison, Michael
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bates, Alf
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Beith, A. J.
Bottomley, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, W.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Ashley, Jack
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bradley, Tom


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Braine, Sir Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Blaker, Peter
Brittan, Leon


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.




Brooke, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lomas, Kenneth


Brotherton, Michael
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Loveridge, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Golding, John
Luard, Evan


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Goodhart, Philip
Luce, Richard


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Goodhew, Victor
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Goodlad, Alastair
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gorst, John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Buchanan, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
MacCormick, Iain


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McCrindle, Robert


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Macfarlane, Neil


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
MacGregor, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grieve, Percy
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Griffiths, Eldon
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cant, R. B.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maclennan, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Carter, Ray
Grylls, Michael
Madel, David


Cartwright, John
Hall, Sir John
Magee, Bryan


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mahon, Simon


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marks, Kenneth


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hannam, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mates, Michael


Cockroft, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mather, Carol


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus


Cohen, Stanley
Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mawby, Ray


Concannon, J. D.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cope, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Corbett, Robin
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Costain, A. P.
Henderson, Douglas
Mills, Peter


Crawshaw, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cronin, John
Hodgson, Robin
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Crouch, David
Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector


Crowder, F. P.
Horam, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hordern, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Dalyell, Tam
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morgan, Geraint


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Neave, Airey


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael


Doig, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Newton, Tony


Dormand, J. D.
Hurd, Douglas
Normanton, Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Oakes, Gordon


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Ogden, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Onslow, Cranley


Dunnett, Jack
Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Durant, Tony
John, Brynmor
Osborn, John


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Padley, Walter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Edwards, Nicholas (pembroke)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pardoe, John


English, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Parker, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Parkinson, Cecil


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Joseph, Rt Hon. Sir Keith
Percival, Ian


Fairgrieve, Russell
Judd, Frank
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Faulds, Andrew
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, William (Rugby)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kilfedder, James
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Radice, Giles


Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Ford, Ben
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim


Forman, Nigel
Knox, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fox, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Reid, George


Freud, Clement
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lawson, Nigel
Rhodes James, R.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


George, Bruce
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ridsdale, Julian


Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm







Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Stanley, John
Ward, Michael


Roper, John
Steel, Rt Hon David
Watkins, David


Rose, Paul B.
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Watt, Hamish


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Weitzman, David


Rowlands, Ted
Stott, Roger
Wells, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.
Welsh, Andrew


Sainsbury, Tim
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Sandelson, Neville
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott-Hobkins, James
Temple-Morris, Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Shepherd, Colin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Shersby, Michael
Thompson, George
Wilson, Gordon (Qundee E)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Silvester, Fred
Tinn, James
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Sims, Roger
Tomlinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Sinclair, Sir George
Townsend, Cyril D.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Small, William
Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Younger, Hon George


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard



Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mr. Ted Graham.


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mitchell, Austin


Allaun, Frank
Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Molyneaux, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gould, Bryan
Newens, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Ovenden, John


Bean, R. E.
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Bell, Ronald
Hooley, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Biffen, John
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Body, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bradford, Rev Robert
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Budgen, Nick
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rooker, J. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Carmichael, Neil
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Carson, John
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lambie, David
Stoddart, David


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stokes, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cormack, Patrick
Lee, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Torney, Tom


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Litterick, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Loyden, Eddie
Wigley, Dafydd


Dunlop, John
McCartney, Hugh
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCusker, H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marten, Neil
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Mr. John Ellis and


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Max Madden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bates.]

Committee tomorrow.

Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention and that of the

House, particularly with relation to the matter on which you gave advice earlier today, to the fact that in the Division which has just been reported some 150 hon. Members were not accounted for. It will have been apparent that there were some quite prominent gaps in the Government, and there were other hon. Members who obviously did not record a vote in that Division.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, take note of the fact that in this Division there was no procedure whereby it was possible to record a positive abstention or to place on record the names of hon. Members who deliberately withheld their votes as distinct from those who were simply absent from the House? This underlines a serious defect in the procedures of the House, and I ask you to ponder on this matter in relation to your earlier ruling.

Mr. Norman Tebbitt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for anyone who wishes to do so, without offending against the rules of order, to put an advertisement in the personal columns of The Times or in The Guardian?

Mr. Speaker: If there is a defect in our procedures, it is one that has endured for centuries.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities. it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such reasonable charges as returning officers are by virtue of that Act entitled to in connection with Assembly elections;
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of that Fund or out of money provided by Parliament; and
(c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of that Act—[Mr. John.]

10.17 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We have heard a great deal this evening about the fact that the Bill will in no way enlarge the powers of the European Parliament.
I am deeply concerned about the wording of the Money Resolution, particularly paragraphs (b) and (c). It is perfectly justifiable under existing election rules to allow for expenditure on the proper management of elections, and that is what we have been discussing today. However, it is painfully obvious in these two paragraphs that there is very little control over the sums of money to be expended in relation to the European elections.
I am deeply concerned to ensure that we should have a very clear indication of why such wide and blanket powers should be required, whether the 4 million units of account voted for the European Parliament for publicity for direct elections—and which, we are told, will be spent not on publicising the various aspects of European policies but on trying to persuade the electorate that it is vitally important that it should vote in these pointless elections—is in any way a justifiable amount of money and whether the House of Commons should be asked to give a blank cheque.
It is quite absurd that we should spend a whole evening discussing the powers

of the so-called Parliament over which we have astonishingly little control and then at the last minute, as hon. Members are leaving the Chamber en masse, we should be called to vote on a Money Resolution allowing the Executive to enter any sums of money it likes with very little control from the House of Commons. If we are a sovereign House of Commons, we must have control over expenditure.
It is all very well to suggest that the Government will oppose any increase in the powers of the European Parliament, but apparently they are not prepared to spell out the sum of money covered by the resolution. I ask for protection on behalf of Back Bench Members. I am disturbed by the constitutional decision that the House has taken tonight, and I urge protection for the few powers that we are able to reserve for ourselves. I want to see them clearly stated to all hon. Members in this House.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: 1 hope that we shall have an explanation of this Money Resolution from the Minister responsible. I hope that he has now had time to collect his thoughts and will explain the significance of the resolution. It is quite clear that the Bill, apart from its merits or demerits, will mean a further increase in Government expenditure.
We have been told that there will he a new structure of government because the Home Secretary said so. We know to our cost that government structures mean a great deal of expenditure. There will be more Members of Parliament. Some of us believe that the Members of the European Assembly will be paid rather more than Members of this Parliament. Therefore, there will be an increase of expenditure there. No doubt there will also be an increase in the bureaucracy.
Before we pass this resolution, we should be given some estimate of the increase in expenditure and be told how it will be paid and what control this House will have over it. All that we know at present is that the Government are asking us to authorise
the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such reasonable charges as returning officers are … entitled to in connection with Assembly elections".


I have no idea how large those "reasonable charges" will be, nor can I discover any information from the documents available to us.
We are also told that it will be expedient to authorise
any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of that Fund or out of money provided by Parliament".
We should like to have an explanation of that passage also, because some hon. Members may not fully understand what it means. However, that is not quite the end of the matter because, lastly, we are told that it will be expedient to authorise
the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of that Act".
I am sure that the Minister of State understands what that is all about, and I see that he has at least two pages of brief with him tonight. I hope that he will take a reasonable time and give us a full explanation of how much all this will cost.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: As nobody on the Conservative Front Bench is as agitated as I am about this expenditure, I wish to add, on behalf of the Conservative Party, my plaint. Since my party is so keen on controlling Government expenditure, I believe that there should be a clear statement from the responsible Minister of what amounts of money will fall to be paid by the taxpayer. I hope that the Minister will now give a full explanation of what is intended by the Government.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I shall try not to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, but I wish to underline the point that this Money Resolution appears to be a blank cheque. That should be enough to scandalise the House in view of the way in which an avalanche of money was spent in brainwashing, bamboozling and generally confusing the British people in the referendum,
It is obvious that since the constituencies that will be involved in the elections for this so-called European Parliament, Assembly or form of government—or

whatever term the Home Secretary finally settles on when he realises what he is talking about—will be so large, nobody will know what he or she is voting for. Therefore, another avalanche of money will have to be unloaded to convince the British public that something meaningful is happening. If one is a Member for a constituency with 350,000 constituents, in effect one is not a member for a "constituency" at all. Therefore, a great deal of spurious and mendacious propaganda will have to be manufactured to persuade people that something important is taking place in the elections for this so-called Assembly, Parliament or form of government.
It is most important that somebody from the Government should put figures to these items in the resolution. It is no good the Government saying "The elections do not mean anything because they will not change the power of the European Assembly" while at the same time asking for unlimited sums of money to persuade the British people that something important is happening and to persuade the British Labour movement that the squalid act of betrayal enacted tonight by the senior Members of this Government is meaningful and in the interests of the British people.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I should like to support the words of our Front Bench spokesman and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) and their efforts to persuade the Government to come clean on the public expenditure effects of the measure. I am sure that we are of one accord in urging the Government to explain fully the implications of the resolution and to say exactly how much money will be involved and how it will be expended. I urge the Government to cut this item of public expenditure.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have been diligent in recent months and years in urging cuts in public expenditure, but we now have an opportunity to make a substantial cut in public spending. We do not know the precise figure because, as is the case with so many Money Resolutions, the amount is not stated in the resolution. It is, in effect, a blank cheque. However, we can find a degree of evidence about the money involved in


the Bill because it says that the financial effects of the measure and its effects upon public service manpower could result in costs of £10 million every five years. The sum of £10 million for an election that is probably unwanted by the British public is a great deal.
I shall not stray from the subject before the House, but it so happens that there is something of a crisis in the social services in my constituency and in the health district which includes my constituency. We are in desperate need of new hospital services. If we could save £10 million here and direct it into my constituency, that would go a long way towards building a new hospital. It is just possible that a large number of my constituents would, in principle, say "Yes" to the Bill, but if they were told that it would cost £10 million it is just possible that many of them would turn round and say "No".
Can the Minister give us an explanation of how the money will be spent—if, indeed, it is to be £10 million? Perhaps many hon. Members will now see the practical results of their earlier decision and will decide to reject the Money Resolution.
Leaving aside the argument about elections, £10 million is a great deal of money—far greater than I should have expected—and I wonder whether it is truly necessary. In passing this resolution we shall be signing a blank cheque, and that is unjustifiable. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear and frank explanation of the total cost so that the House can decide whether to accept the resolution.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: My comments will be brief and I shall not reiterate those which have already been made. I shall add flesh to the bones of the argument. I want the Minister to give an estimate of the money involved and to say how much will be spent on the Press, advertising and media side of direct elections.
I have here a copy of a letter on the notepaper of the League for European Economic Co-operation, dated 27th July 1977, which itemises details of a seminar held in Manchester on 24th November. It was sent by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) to the right hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). It

has been reprinted elsewhere and appeared in the Tribune on 14th October. It says that the seminar would be held for representatives of local media.
Our aim will be to reach and attract local media representatives in an effort to persuade them that from their point of view direct elections can be attractive.
What can that mean other than a sop for all the public expenditure involved by way of advertising—whether placed by election agents, returning officers or parties, and some paid for out of public funds? Therefore, whatever may appear in the Press relating to direct elections, it is clearly the intention of this organisation that material shall appear because it is profitable to the Press. That has nothing whatsoever to do with direct elections or the principles of democracy.
I therefore ask the Minister to make abundantly clear how much public money will be set aside to fund the media, to argue the case for direct elections—because that is what it will be used for in the end. The Minister should answer clearly. Letters are being passed between hon. Members on both sides—letters written on the notepaper of organisations outside the House which clearly wish to use public money to subvert the media on the issue of direct elections.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Could the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the use of the word "attractive" in that letter? It sounds almost as though perhaps pornographic attractions are being organised by the Government. Could the hon. Gentleman read that passage again? It sounds most alarming. Perhaps it is not just a matter of corrupt practices but something even more serious.

Mr. Rooker: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman approaches his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon who wrote the letter on 27th July.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I did not seek to intervene in the main debate when 22 Back Bench Members, in addition to the long-winded Front Bench spokesmen on both sides at the beginning and end of the debate, succeeded in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) has done


a service to the Tory Party. It seems extraordinary that no Front Bench spokesmen on either side of the House should seek to get up and speak on such a Money Resolution. The onus has been on Back Benchers. Public accountability for large sums of public money has been left to Back Benchers. Some of my Front Bench colleagues publicly make a lot of play over public expenditure. It is extraordinary that they apparently show no concern over this resolution.
There are some on our Front Benches who display a phobia and a form of blindness in relation to the Common Market. To them, anything to do with the Common Market is good; there is nothing bad in the EEC. Their attitude seems to be that, irrespective of the cost, the elections and everything that go with them must be approved.
I have grave concerns about direct elections. Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, particularly my Cheshire neighbour, the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), have made some important points. I am concerned that the people of this country should not be misled, as they were misled, to an extent during the EEC referendum campaign—and I speak as one who voted and campaigned in favour of our continued membership and who remains in favour of the Community from the economic point of view. I hope that the Minister will give us the full details. I am not happy with the Money Resolution. It is no more than a blank cheque.
I am pro-European economically, but I am not a federalist. I do not like direct elections because I think that they will undermine the authority of our Westminster Parliament. I believe that the Front Bench of my party, which is a truly national party, should have the courage to put the full facts to the people.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: This is the second time today that I have, in a sense, followed the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He said that he was an economic pro-Marketeer and a political anti-Marketeer. I am an anti-Marketeer on both counts because I see the logical development of one from the other. In this as in other matters, the hon. Gentleman will start to see the dawn of truth and follow us.
I realise that the resolution follows the formalities of drafting, but the words "such reasonable charges" have more menace in this resolution, since it is concerned with Common Market affairs, than most other resolutions.
We have been convinced in the whole discussion of the Common Market since its earliest days, certainly since we have been members of that unfortunate organisation, that all charges are reasonable. The vocabulary of the Common Market is studded with words such as "reasonable", "sharing" and "partnership". Having footed bills, we have come to realise that they are anything but reasonable. Indeed, they are impositions, incubuses of various kinds on the British people.
What we are asked to contemplate is the election through the ballot box of people without a function but with the most enormous resources at their command and power over nothing but their own egos. No one can pretend that there can be any accountability within the constituencies proposed under any system of election. No one taking on the job could offer the prospect of truly representing the interests of any constitutents—which is just as well, because that is not the intention. Therefore, we have an Assembly in which nobody intends to represent and which was never intended to represent. Allowing "reasonable charges" of any description in these circumstances will be very difficult in a country accustomed at least to some extent to democratic representation.
If the elections go ahead, the Government and the British taxpayer need not help to pay, because such funds exist in the coffers of the European Movement as to permit it to pay twice or three times over, without the merest dent in its funds, for the elections, the advertising and so on.
We have heard that the Money Resolution gives a blank cheque. It is indeed a blank cheque for a blankety-blank organisation. I am not permitted to give a brief and more colourful description of my real view of the European Assembly.
We were told that the whole process could be attractive to the people. The idea that electing Members on salaries of £27,000 a year in the middle of a wages policy, and against the background


of public expenditure constraints, can be attractive is the most preposterous distortion of how the people will regard the Assembly. I will bet my hon. Friend the Minister of State my salary for a month against any reasonable expenditure he proposes to make that there will not be more than a 45 per cent. poll in the direct elections. I speak from the epi-centre of what is on any estimation the only safe Labour seat in the Assembly elections. We already have a queue of candidates stretching from the Heads of the Valleys Road down to Newport Docks, consisting of assorted pensioners and failed parliamentarians of various kinds. The only relief is that under the "reasonable charges" we shall not have to pay their redundancy payments. If we were burdened with that kind of charge, we should be in trouble. The public sector borrowing requirement would be dwarfed by its demands on national resources.
To be serious, here we are with an insupportable proposition in any democratic terms, an obligation that has been imposed on us simply by our membership of the EEC. Any charges which stem from that under the pretence of democratic representation and accountability to the people, of the articulation of the people's needs or of the monitoring of their interests as represented in the Community, are preposterous and we should not spend a halfpenny, let alone "reasonable charges", on them.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: As the House begins to consider the Bill, it will develop a very keen interest in all the potential clashes there might be between the legislative ambitions and competence of this House and what might develop in Strasbourg, and to that end public opinion will be a vital component. This Money Resolution is a most appropriate occasion on which to inquire into just what will be the use that will be made of such "reasonable charges" as are thought expedient. The point has been well made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) and hon. Members on this side of the House that there will be great anxiety to know to what ends public funds are to be devoted.
If it is a question of Tories campaigning in their Euro-constituencies, either single-Member or by regional list, no doubt they will be dilating on the dangers of Euro-Communism, referred to by the Foreign Secretary. They will need no public funds to proclaim that faith. The world of the City and big business will be there to reinforce their funds if short of money they are.
I suppose that there will be those who see the Community as the ultimate objective of social democracy and will be standing for the Labour Party. They, too, will back their voices with their pockets and will not require the conscript finance of the British taxpayer.
So we come back to what really will be the "reasonable charge". I suspect that "reasonable charge", notwithstanding what the Home Secretary said about the Assembly having no powers additional to what it now possesses, will be used to convince the British people that this is a real occasion which requires their support because we are electing a Parliament at Strasbourg to give them a voice in Europe. One suspects that the whole public relations machinery of the Establishment and the Government will be devoted to the end of inspiring in the British public a belief that this is not a standstill Assembly but a step forward, and that can only be viewed in this House in the relationship which we believe is appropriate between the House of Commons and a Strasbourg Assembly.
We fool ourselves if we suppose that a massive public relations exercise at the time of the elections to persuade the public that they should turn out and vote can be conducted other than in underlining the supposed importance and constitutional significance of that Assembly. Let us not fool ourselves here as we start on what I trust and hope will be a long and constructive detailed examination of this legislation.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Positive and ongoing.

Mr. Biffen: This examination, from its outset and through its continuation, will be a constructive debate, because it is not merely about the character of the Community to which we belong; it will also be about the nature of our national Government.
I come back to the question I want to address to the Minister of State, who I am sure is anxious to help the House in this as in all other matters. Can we please be told what kind of public information services—I use the most neutral language I can select—it is expected to make available over the coming months, and what will be the cost? It is a reasonable request whether one voted in one Lobby or the other an hour ago. It is a reasonable request whether one believes that Britain should remain in the Community or should leave. It is a reasonable request whether one believes, as I do, that there is much virtue in extending the Community to become one encompassing 12 nations or whether one wishes to stand pat.
On any count, what has been requested under the guise of the Money Resolution goes to the very heart of what this debate will be all about. Nothing could be more insulting to Continental Europeans than that publicity should be given to the general assumption that what we are really arguing about in the whole of this legislation is whether there should be a regional list or first past the post. Nothing could be more demeaning to the sensibilities of Continental Europeans, for to them it seems a barely credible—I will not say irrational—side issue. The real central issue is what will be the relationship between this House and the Assembly. If we suppose that that relationship will be unaffected by the way that money in this Money Resolution is spent, we deceive ourselves. It is no good course for this House to set out at this stage with a sense of deception.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he address himself to the point that before we get to these elections, and before there is expenditure by Her Majesty's Government, there will be a great amount spent by the Community itself in advertising the entire electoral machinery?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Lady has made a perfectly valid point, and in so doing she has ruined my peroration. But such will be the generosity that will be inspired by these debates as we proceed that I bear her no ill whatsoever.

10.47 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I do not want to impinge on the time of

the Front Bench in replying to the debate, but I must intervene at this late hour because I really am in need of guidance from the Government Front Bench. I have been a Minister, and I thought that I understood most legislative mysteries, but the more I read this Money Resolution the more I feel that we are engaged in an insoluble circular argument.
I should like to have some elucidation, please, because we are being asked to agree
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session"—
that is, this Session—
it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such reasonable charges as returning officers are by virtue of that Act entitled to in connection with Assembly elections".
When I turn to the European Assembly Election Bill, I find in Clause 14, under the heading "Expenses", the words
There shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund—
(a) such reasonable charges as returning officers are by virtue of this Act entitled to
and so on.
Where do we end up? In absolute nothingness. I say advisedly to the House that this phraseology reflects the casualness about money which is the hallmark of this Community. It is a casualness about other people's money, about taxpayers' money in this country. I say that it is time that we put a stop to it. I hope that the Front Bench will answer this insoluble mystery about the Money Resolution, but I say advisedly that I find it an outrage that money can always be found in the Community for such measures as the common agricultural policy. There is one law for the hard-up in our national society and a free-for-all on expenditure in the European Community.
I find it absolutely nauseating that we are lectured in this country, mainly by Conservative Members—although I am glad to see some allies here tonight—about the need for working men and women to face the cold winds of competition when this happens. Do we get that in the Community? Do we get competition through the common agricultural policy? Does anyone there have to tighten his belt and live up to standards of productivity? Not a bit. Money can


always be found, on this circular argument, for excesses of expenditure by people who are very likely feathering their own nests. This is why I believe that the Bill is an outrage. I want an answer to this circular argument.

10.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): An answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will certainly get. I regret that it will be facts to be put against the rather colourful language which has been used in this most interesting extension of the earlier debate. The Money Resolution is for administrative purposes in connection with the holding of the elections. It has absolutely nothing to do with advertisements for those elections. Those who talk about 4 million and 5 million units of account and so on are talking about matters which are not within the purview of the resolution. The resolution has no connection with that issue.
Let me try to explain what it is that the Money Resolution does and exemplify how it will be used. The argument is not as circular as my right hon. Friend suggests. Returning officers, whose task is authorised by earlier clauses of the Bill, conduct the elections and they and their staffs are paid for the conduct of the elections. It is not possible to predict at this stage with certainty what the exact fees will be, but they will be of the order of £4 million to £5 million.

Mrs. Castle: How do you know?

Mr. John: I wish that when right hon. and hon. Members ask for answers they would listen to those answers. I find it difficult to believe that they can talk and listen at the same time.

Mr. Kinnock: Sit back and fold your arms.

Mr. John: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), whose tenderness on the subject of the media we are all aware of, is one of those who ought to listen to this. I do not say that it will influence his vote in any way, but if questions are asked it is courteous to listen to the reply.

After—

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. John: I cannot give way at this stage. I have a limited amount of time.

Mr. Kinnock: Then do not lecture me on courtesy.

Mr. John: I do not think that I shall take my hon. Friend's strictures on courtesy very easily.
After each parliamentary election, returning officers submit to the Treasury an account which is supported by receipts and other documentation. This is carefully checked by the Treasury before a final settlement is reached with individual returning officers. It is intended to use the same system for these elections to the European Assembly. There is to be careful scrutiny on an administrative basis in quite the same way as in other elections.
Complaint has been made on the score that there will be a blank cheque. But the maximum sums will be prescribed by Statutory Instruments which will be brought into force nearer the time.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. John: I shall give way, but may I complete my answers to all the points first? It is easy to become stuck on point A and have people complain that points B and C have not been dealt with.
Paragraph (b) of the resolution authorises any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable under other enactments out of the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament. The main subject of these sums is the postal charges in respect of candidates' election addresses. They would be of the order, we believe, of £5 million. Provision is also made for charging on the Consolidated Fund any increase in the superannuation contribution required to be paid by a local authority because of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election. This relates to Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act 1949.
The other example which comes to mind under this head is any additional expenses attributable to the Boundary Commissions dealing with work under this legislation. There will obviously be some additional effort and expense involved there.
Finally, paragraph (c) refers to the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any moneys falling to be paid by virtue of


the Bill. The provision is intended to cover the payment of forfeited deposits.

Mr. Jay: Will my hon. Friend make a little more clear the figures which he mentioned? He referred to a figure of £4 million to £5 million, or perhaps it was £45 million. Later on, he appeared to mention another £4 million. Are those to be added together to form some total? Does this mean £4 million to £5 million through the validity of the legislation, is it that amount per year, or is it that amount per election?

Mr. John: I mentioned two sums under paragraphs (a) and (b). Under paragraph (a) I mentioned a sum of between £4 million and £5 million. Under paragraph (b), which is the candidates' election addresses, I mentioned a further sum of £5 million. Clearly, therefore, they have to be added in order to arrive at the £10 million which is mentioned, roughly at any rate, in the financial effects of the Bill in the Explanatory Memorandum. My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that they would be incurred at every election—that is, every five years.
Those are my explanations of the matters about which I was asked. They give examples of how that expenditure is to be incurred. But I make the point once more and with the utmost vehemence that these are administrative arrangements under this Act of Parliament, as the Bill will become. They have nothing to do with the propaganda based on either side of the argument which will be waged during these elections.

Mr. Max Madden: My hon. Friend has now said twice that there will not be any expenditure incurred on advertising or media information to the public to familiarise them with what is a new form of election and what may involve a new method of election. Will he confirm that there will be no expenditure by the Government to inform the public of that fact?

Mr. John: I am speaking to a Money Resolution, and the scope of the debate is rather restricted. I have said that under this Money Resolution none of that money will be devoted to the purposes that my hon. Friend mentioned. The 4 million units of account to which reference has been made is a quite sep-

arate matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That appears to come as a great surprise. I do not know why it should, and I do not think that anything I have said has misled the House, either in-advertently or deliberately. We are making provision for the administrative arrangements under the Bill. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Biffen: Before the hon. Gentleman finally sits down, may I put this to him? He has just reiterated figures in relation to election arrangements. Presumably these would be conditional on whether the election proceeded under the regional list or some other system. What assumptions were undertaken by his Dept when compiling these sums?

Mr. John: Obviously, we took into account the normal ways in which returning officers count the votes, and it is intended to be a sum which will cover either event. But I think that this is the best estimate that we can give at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to specify every calculation that was taken into account, but, for example, the reasonable costs of returning officers and their staffs are based on our experience of past elections.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate what reasonable costs he thinks are associated with the Boundary Commission? He has given two separate figures—namely, £4 million to £5 million and million. Under paragraph (c) he talked about the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums relating to the work of the Boundary Commission. Will he indicate what sum he has in mind?

Mr. John: I have said that it is difficult to say at this stage what extra effort is attributable solely to the Assembly elections, but provision has to be made for such sums. We do not imagine that they will be huge.

Mr. Clement Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the considerable expense of the Boundary Commission would be saved by PR?

Mr. John: I dealt with the sums mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) by saying that they would not be very large. On


the best estimate that we have, they will be about £10,000 to £12,000.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). Have the Government been able to make any real distinction between the costs of the election if it is held on the regional list system or on the normal firstpast-the-post system?

Mr. John: I think that the hon. Gentleman heard my answer. The estimate that has been made has been intended to cover both eventualities. That is the best advice that I can give to the House.

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided Ayes 156, Noes 64.

Division No. 21]
AYES
[11.02 p.m.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Marcus
Penhaligon, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Freud, Clement
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
George, Bruce
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Radice, Giles


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Golding, John
Rathbone, Tim


Baker, Kenneth
Gourlay, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bates, Alf
Grant, John (Islington C)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Beith, A. J.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Rhodes James, R.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harper, Joseph
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haselhurst, Alan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Roper, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Horam, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rowlands, Ted


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B ham, Sm H)
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jessel, Toby
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
John, Brynmor
Shepherd, Colin


Buck, Antony
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Shersby, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Caliaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Carter, Ray
Kilfedder, James
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Cartwright, John
Knox, David
Stainton, Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lawrence, Ivan
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Channon, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stott, Roger


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cockroft, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Cohen Stanley
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thompson, George


Corbett, Robin
MacFarquhar Roderick
Tinn, James


Crawshaw, Richard
MacGregor, John
Tomlinson, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Maclennan, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Dalyell, Tam
Magee, Bryan
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Mahon, Simon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


de Freilas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Marks, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Mates, Michael
Watkinson, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mather, Carol
Watt, Hamish


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Drayson, Burnaby
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunn, James A.
Montgomery, Fergus
Whitehead, Phillip


Dunnett, Jack
Morgan, Geraint
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Dykes, Hugh
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Woodall, Alec


English, Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Newton, Tony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Faulds, Andrew
Normanton, Tom



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Ted Graham and


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Biffen, John
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Ashton, Joe
Body, Richard
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Atkinson, Norman
Bradford, Rev Robert
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bean, R. E.
Budgen, Nick
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bell, Ronald
Carson, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dunlop, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth




Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Litterick, Tom
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
McCusker, H
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stoddart, David


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marten, Neil
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Hon (Bristol NW)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moate, Roger
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ovenden, John
Woof, Robert


Kerr, Russell
Pavitt, Laurie



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kinnock, Neil
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Max Madden and


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. J. W. Rooker.


Lee, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such reasonable charges as return-

ing officers are by virtue of that Act entitled to in connection with Assembly elections;
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of that Fund or out of money provided by Parliament; and
(c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of that Act.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAY CODE

11.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move,
That the proposed alterations contained in the new Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
It will be seen that on the Order Paper it is noted that
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in their First Report, dated 8th November 1977 (H.C., 16-i) have drawn the special attention of the House to the Instrument.
Before introducing the new Highway Code I should like to comment on that technical point, because I see the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), in his place.
It is the view of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that the revisions should be set out against the existing code; in other words, that we should be debating a document setting out the present code with the revisions, not the new Highway Code in its entirety.
The Department, in its evidence to the Joint Committee, pointed out:
The problem is that where the alterations are extensive and complex … they either do not make sense or are not fully intelligible when taken out of context: even identifying the alterations in the revised Code presents difficulties because of problems of omission and textual rearrangement.
We think that the procedure which has been adopted over many years, whereby the House has the existing Highway Code and the new Highway Code and can compare them one with another, renders comprehension easier. To look at a document which simply sets out the revisions is a complicated process. On practical grounds, we thought that the procedure which we have adopted over the years was better.
Secondly, on strictly legal grounds, we believe that the present approach is well precedented. The code was introduced in 1930, the revisions of 1935, 1946, 1954, 1959 and 1969 were all done according to the procedure that we are adopting tonight, and the wording of the Act is precisely the same as it is now. We therefore think that we are fulfilling the reasonable technical requirements of the Act, though I understand the point made by the Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is the duty of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to report to the House when it considers that a power indicated by the parent statute is not being used by the Secretary of State. At the same time, the Committee's report indicated that a practical way of dealing with it was by the method adopted by the Minister, and it may be that the House will not feel quite so strongly about the validity of the proceedings as did the Joint Committee. The Committee suggested that one way of getting over this was by the Minister in some way putting the alterations before the House. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman proposes to do.

Mr. Horam: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so reasonable about the matter. I intend to refer briefly to the main changes, but any hon. Member who wishes to have them in a handy form can go to the Vote Office and get the First Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. He will see that in the annex to Appendix B the main changes are set out in a page and a half. My summary will be an encapsulated version of that summary, so I think that the House will have the information that it requires.
I turn to the code. The document that we are considering tonight—the proposed new Highway Code—is the end result of a long process of drafting, consultation and redrafting. The present version of the Highway Code was published in February 1969. When Parliament gave its approval to publish the code at the end of 1968, Members were critical of the lack of opportunity to consider the draft at an early enough time to influence the detailed drafting of the code. The Government of the day gave an assurance that such an opportunity would be provided before the code was next revised.
In accordance with that assurance, we published a Green paper entitled "A Proposed New Highway Code" in February 1975. This served as a basis for consideration by Members of Parliament and also for widespread consultation with interested organisations and members of the public. An amended draft of the code was then prepared in the light of the comments received on the Green Paper. This was included in the paper


for parliamentary debate which the House considered in November last year.
When I opened that debate, I explained the main proposed changes in the text of the latest draft as compared with the text of the published code and the earlier drafts. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish me to go over all the details again. Those who were present on that occasion—and I see a number of them here tonight—will recall that we had a full debate. Many sensible and helpful points were made, and afterwards I wrote to all those whose suggestions I had not been able to deal with at the time. I explained what we proposed to do about them in every particular. The code that we are considering tonight will therefore not contain any surprises.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn). Welling-borough (Mr. Fry), Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), Southgate (Mr. Berry), Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), Newton (Mr. Evans) and, last but not least, Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who all participated in the previous debate. I am grateful for the comments that they made then. One or two of those hon. Members have explained that they cannot be here tonight.
We have not changed the text to take in all the points that were made during the earlier debate—that would be impossible—but the code has been influenced by a long and widespread process of consultation and the points made by hon. Members have been considered. A number of the points made were contradictory, and many others that I have seen were not in themselves suitable for the Highway Code. None the less, many amendments suggested by hon. Members have been incorporated in the text before the House.
Let me mention the main changes. For the road user on foot, the Green Cross code has replaced the kerb drill, and pelican crossings have been explained fully. For the road user on wheels, there is mention for the first time of the safety of children in cars. There is a reference to the problems of driving in fog. Mention is made of the need to be aware of motor cyclists, and new features that have come in over the past eight years, such

as bus lanes and mini-roundabouts, are explained. There is also a section on parking, with particular reference to parking at night and without lights. For cyclists it mentions for the first time the use of bus lanes, and it gives further advice on the use of roundabouts.
On motorways, information on warning signals is updated, and there is quite a lot of new information and advice on vehicle markings to take account of markings applying to dangerous loads and disabled persons which have come into being since the last Highway Code was published.
Another general point is the widespread criticism voiced about the cumbersome nature of the process for revising the Highway Code. This stems mainly from the need to get parliamentary approval for any change in the main body of the code, however small. I am afraid that legislation would be needed to make a substantial change in our procedure, and we have not yet decided how the procedure should be changed. It will be necessary at least to allow for some amendment of the code to keep it in line with other statutory changes without the need for affirmative resolutions.
One tries to make a distinction between changes that are a consequence of other changes and changes that are substantial in their own right. It might be possible to proceed without an affirmative resolution on this.
One small change is that the House is being asked to approve the code between pages 6 and 45. It does not include the section on traffic signs, signals and markings which are dealt with on pages 46 to 60. Part of the existing code is in the body of the text approved by Parliament. The signs illustrated in this section are only a selection of the more important signs in common use. It has been found during the life of the current code that it would have been desirable to vary the selection from time to time in order to keep the information in the code up to date. The signs in this section—and any others that might be selected for inclusion—already have the force of law because they are prescribed in regulations or are authorised for use in special circumstances.
There is, therefore, no change in the degree of Parliament's control over traffic


signs; the only difference will be that in future the selection of signs and markings shown in the code can be altered without reference to Parliament to reflect the changing pattern of use of different signs. I hope that this is a sensible small change.

Mr. David Walder: I think that we have examples in the code of traffic signs which have the force of law. But those not included also have the force of law. By what process of selection might the Minister change the examples given in the code? By what standard will he judge this? It is reasonable to Fay that someone reading the code might think that those selected were more significant than those that were not selected.

Mr. Horam: No, it is a matter simply of keeping the signs up to date. For example, pelican crossings have come in since the last code, and these have been included. Some signs cannot be included under the existing procedures. This will give us flexibility to bring them in, because signs are not a part of the Highway Code.
During the last debate, several hon. Members asked about the price at which the code will be sold. On the front cover of the copy issued to hon. Members, the price is shown as nought pence. I am afraid that this does not mean it will be given away free. It means that until Parliament has approved the new code and Her Majesty's Stationery Office has obtained tenders for the bulk printing, the price cannot be determined. It is clear that the new version will cost more than the 15p which is the latest price of the current version, but the increase will be kept as small as possible.
There may have been some confusion during the last debate with the price of the Green Paper, which was 50p. The cost of the new Highway Code certainly will be less than that. It will be somewhere between 15p and 50p, and I hope much nearer to 15p than 50p.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does not the Minister agree that, depending on the punctuation used, the price at the bottom of the Highway Code could read "HM SOOP"?

Mr. Horam: I am sorry if the printing is not entirely to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction.

Mr. Norman Fowler: How long will it be before the new Highway Code is on the bookstalls?

Mr. Horam: We hope that it will be on the bookstalls in the new year.
We have waited a long time for the new Highway Code—many would say too long. The present text of the code was laid before Parliament in July but, unfortunately, it was not possible to find time to take this motion before the Summer Recess. I hope that the House will now agree that the code can go forward for publication. It has already been approved in another place. If it is agreed, it will, as I have said, be on sale to the public in the new year.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I intend to be brief. I wish to thank the Minister for the work which he and his Department have carried out in meeting the points we put in the last debate on this topic. What he has done has substantially met our case.
I am not sure I agree with the Minister that it is necessary to have new legislation to avoid delays in producing a new Highway Code. It is worth remembering that the last time we debated the Highway Code was in December 1968 when Richard Marsh was Minister of Transport. Therefore, we must try to bring the Highway Code up to date with more regularity than has been the case in the last few years. Some parts of the code were out of date, and since it is the country's road safety manual we should ensure that it is regularly revised.
No doubt we shall all make speeches based on what is or is not in the Highway Code, but the basic trouble with the code is that few people actually read it. It is true that to pass his test the motorist has to have a knowledge of it, but once that test is passed the L-plates go into the dustbin and the Highway Code is put on a bookshelf, where it remains gathering dust like some unread reference book. That is the problem. We all have our ideas about new developments that should be reflected in the code, but any disagreements that we have this evening are not, I suggest, fundamental. The fundamental point is how to persuade the public to read the code. It is our basic road safety manual. It sets down guidance not only for the motorist but


for all other road users—the cyclist, the motor cyclist and the pedestrian. As such, the message or messages in the code should get to the audience for whom they are intended.
Let me give one piece of evidence in order to make my point. The AA magazine Drive carried out a survey with 100 motorists. It asked the motorists to answer 10 questions set by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents based on the code. The result was that 78 motorists out of 100 scored less than 50 per cent. and 18 motorists scored less than 25 per cent., while the lowest score came from motorists who had been driving for three years—namely, a score of 6 per cent.
Another survey which was carried out among primary schoolchildren aged between 8 and 11 years—a much simpler test—showed results that were a little better, but, even so, 70 children out of 180 returned scores of less than 50 per cent. That is a point well worth emphasising, because there are several organisations, in particular the Pedestrians Association, which take the number of child casualties extremely seriously, as we all do.
The difficulties involved in making children conscious of road safety is a real problem for the Government. The road accident is now the most common killer of schoolchildren. Each year 51,000 children under the age of 15 are injured or killed in road accidents. About half of all pedestrian casualties are aged under 15. There is a problem here in getting the message over not only to children but to their parents—and early enough.
On the last occasion that we discussed the Highway Code, I argued the increasing importance of persuasion in road safety. Persuasion rather than legislation was the case that I then made, and I continue to do so. There is a limit to the amount of legislation that we can ask the police to enforce in road safety, as with anything else.
I raise this point again because at that time the Government were declaring their intent to introduce new legislation in the matter. Compulsory seat belt legislation was one example of what they intended, but only one. Now, the Government have abandoned that attempt. I shall

not argue whether that decision was right or wrong, but I am bound to tell the Minister that I am not over-impressed by the Government's reasons for not proceeding.
However, as a result of that we are all persuaders now, because if the law is rejected as a matter of course—and the Government have rejected it—persuasion can be the only alternative policy to be followed, unless we are satisfied with the present level of accidents, which I assume that the Government are not.
There are some questions that I should like to put to the Minister. When on an earlier occasion the Secretary of State talked about road safety, he promised the House a statement on the subject. It was an explicit promise, and that promise was certainly also explicit in the White Paper on Transport. The Government have since abandoned plans for legislation in a number of important areas. It would, however, be a great mistake if the Government abandoned plans to bring out a statement on road safety, and the House would like an assurance that a statement will be made soon setting out the Government's view. I should like the Minister to give that assurance tonight.
I also ask what new measures the Government have in mind to get over the lessons now included in the Highway Code. On the last occasion, I suggested that a campaign could be conducted with the help of the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, which could send out material with reminders. That was, perhaps, an optimistic hope, bearing in mind the trouble that there has been there. I have since heard—although I thank the Minister for considering the suggestion—that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre would be unable to do that. I am a little surprised that the Centre should find it impossible or that the cost would be impossible.
However, since that idea is ruled out, will the Minister say what can be done as an alternative? In other words, may we know just what the Government intend to do to publicise the Highway Code and the other safety measures that they are taking? Are they planning campaigns using the media—television, radio and the newspapers? Unless they do so, all the words used in two debates


will be wasted and the toll of dead and injured will continue unchecked.
That is the point that I make especially to the Under-Secretary. We certainly wish the Code to be given approval, but we wish to emphasise that not only must it be given approval; we must find means whereby its advice is brought home to the public in a much better way than previously.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: We expect the House to approve the Highway Code. I have not been able to make a profound study of it; my reason for wishing to take part in the debate is to draw attention to a major malady—the total non-observation of the existing speed laws on the highway.
I have in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who leads for the Opposition on transport matters. He used the phrase "persuasion rather than legislation". I agree that we do not want to bemuse people with a great galaxy of legislation on this subject: we have had enough over the years. The key question is the enforcement of the provisions of the various Highway Codes that we have brought into being. If we embellish the previous law with a new law we shall not get down to the brass tacks of enforcing its observation either by educative exercises or by police diligence in the form of intervention from time to time. Unless we are prepared to do that we may as well not have a Highway Code.
It is true that many parents use motor cars and that that may make them a little more cautious than people without children. I noticed that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked about the necessity for educating children by making them conscious of the dangers of the highway. In my view the need for understanding rests with the motorists—those in charge of lethal weapons on the highway, who half the time are not awake. Most pedestrians who do not use motor cars, or have not yet arrived at the age when they qualify to drive motor cars—people such as schoolchildren—are totally unaware that a large percentage of motorists who were examined on the Highway Code and who passed a driving test many years ago are not necessarily completely alive

to the situation for the whole time during which they are behind the steering wheels of their cars.
I understand the Government's position in bringing forward a Highway Code of of this kind but I was disappointed by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. In my view his job is to probe these road safety matters and to be much more alive and militant.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Before he makes silly charges like that, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reflect that we have debated this matter once before. I am not clear whether he was here on the last occasion.

Mr. Bidwell: I was not here on the last occasion, but I happen to be here on this occasion, and I am taking this parliamentary opportunity to make these observations on this very important matter—albeit at twenty minutes to 12 o'clock. This matter requires—one would imagine that the hon. Member would agree—a much more painstaking examination by means of a full-scale debate in this place.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the lack of observation of speed limits.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield seems to be getting a little feverish. He should remember that he is the hon. Friend of a Member who picked up the Mace and waved it in the House, and who has contravened the speed limits of the Highway Code. It is important that Members of the Opposition, who generally drive very high-powered cars, should set an example on the highways. At present, the code is being flagrantly breached.

Mr. Anthony Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bidwell: No. It is common for motorists to refer to the outside lane on motorways and lesser highways as the "fast" lane. That is wrong. It is the overtaking lane.
Some cars are becoming progressively more powerful and those in privileged positions who drive them—including hon. Members opposite and their friends—are not observing the Highway Code.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bidwell: Not at the moment.

Mr. Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As far as I can understand the incoherent ramblings of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), he appears to be making allegations about hon. Members. Would it not be in order for him to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) who has been seeking to intervene? If the hon. Gentleman will not give way, should he not withdraw some of his more incoherent ramblings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) must be allowed to make his speech in his own way. However, I hope that he will have regard to the rules of the House in this matter.

Mr. Bidwell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly have regard to the rules of the House. I am making my speech in my own way and I shall give way when I think fit and not when hon. Members opposite think that I should give way.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentlemen give way?

Mr. Bidwell: No. The principal reason that I have intervened is to make a plea for the observation of speed restrictions. I do not want to be personal in this matter. I do not know how hon. Members opposite drive and I can only observe them from time to time, but one Conservative Member has been convicted in this regard. There may have been hon. Members on the Government side who have been so convicted, but I have not heard of any lately.
It is essential that people in public life—and that includes hon. Members—adhere stringently to speed limits. The failure to observe limits is a major factor in the annual slaughter on the roads. I suggest that we should consider a return to the system of the old days, with a warning followed by punitive measures. In the old days, we used to have courtesy cops.
Other motorists become incensed if one does not drive at 40 m.p.h. in a 30-m.p.h. area or at 50 m.p.h. in a 40-m.p.h. area. One is regarded as a nuisance by those who drive high-powered cars. Those who

are in leadership positions must set an example on the highway, or driving becomes a rat race. That is a big part of the reason why we slaughter children going to and from school.
The manipulation of the modern cat does not require 100 per cent. attention. Cars with manual gearchanges require more attention than those with automatic gearboxes, and the tendency is for automatics to gain the ascendancy. In the United States most cars are automatics. The need for physical activity when driving makes the driver more alert, and that is especially important in view of the distractions to which many drivers are subject. I live close to a pedestrian crossing that is used by children, and I see the problems every day of the week.
I may have rubbed some hon. Members up the wrong way in making my plea, but I make no apology. As a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, I have an interest in the use of buses, which are involved in the lesser part of road accidents. Another form of public transport—rail—is involved in the lesser part of inland transport accidents.
It is not good enough on a Thursday night, when most hon. Members are leaving the House, simply to approve in a cool way a new Highway Code without making this plea for the strict observance of speed limits. It should be brought about mainly by an educative process. Motorists should have their ears pulled, be warned for contraventions, and then lose their licences. This matter is important when every year sees more and more motorists crowding on to our roads and the production of more and more lethal weapons to assail the public, and particularly schoolchildren.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) on achieving a sort of miracle. Looking at the subject of the debate, I should have thought it impossible, whatever one's ingenuity, to introduce an element of party politics, but the hon. Gentleman has succeeded. It would now seem that a good way to judge how people will vote at the next election is to see whether they drive fast in expensive cars or slowly in less expensive cars.
The significant thing about the Highway Code was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). He used the expression "reading it". One hopes that people do so. I have come to the conclusion, as the code is presented, that it and, more important, perhaps, the signs on the road are largely designed for the illiterate. There has been an increasing tendency to remove words and substitute symbols. The signs are important. They are not entirely consistent. Warning signs, for instance, are mostly triangular, but there is no consistency. As a frequent road user, I am at times confused by symbols which have no explanation.
On page 39 of the new booklet there is an inexpressibly melancholy picture of a small motor car—obviously, therefore, owned by a Labour voter—falling to the right, incidentally, into the water. On page 38 of the old booklet, there is what looks like a couple of parallel nails with heads. Faced with that sign, is it not a tremendous stretch of the imagination to work out that it means that there is a level crossing with automatic half-barriers ahead?
There was an experiment some time ago on the whole question of what a motorist took in at speed. There was an experiment in writing a town direction—Leicester, for example—entirely in upper case letters. It was then decided that people passing at speed did not necessarily see which town was indicated. We then went back to capital and lower case, it being reasonably thought that there was a sort of pattern to the title of a town and that if a motorist was in a hurry he was better directed by a more clearly written indication.
All the tendencies of the signs would seem to be towards pictures. I think that leaves an area of doubt. The classic example is not yet familiar on our roads, because we do not have legislation of that sort, but it may happen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is probably living in apprehension that it will come over from Europe. Those with expensive cars who go abroad—they must be Tories, of course, according to the hon. Member for Southall—will be familiar with the sign in Europe which says that priority must be given to mail vehicles. The sign is a post-

horn lying on its back. A friend of mine said that, having looked at it for a long time, he thought it meant "Snails on the road". One can understand that.
My favourite sign is a written one, but it gives the motorist no indication of what he might do. It says "Subsidence", occasionally "Beware of subsidence".I do not know what I am expected to do—accelerate, go slower, get off the road, dismount, or subside.
But the real point is this: I think there is a danger that the motorist will be faced with a galaxy of signs. There are examples in both copies of the Highway Code. On any motorway there is a battery of signs and flashing lights, and these are very confusing. The odd simple word would be of great assistance to the motorist. Curiously enough, the only place where the authorities seem to be lavish in using words in on the flat surface of the road. I find them incredibly difficult to decipher on a dark wet night. I must confess—although probably I confess to committing crimes in the process—that usually I realise that there is writing on the road only when I have passed over it.
My plea is quite serious. We really must consider what is an effective and informative sign. I suspect that all these lovely illustrations do not really help to any real extent.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) about the quality of signs, although I think they have been improving and I hope they will improve further still.
I rather regret the somewhat silly speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). Of course, it is important to observe speed limits, but the proportion of motorists who exceed the speed limit is far greater than the proportion of those who drive what the hon. Member would call powerful cars. His point about powerful cars is not related to the question of speed limits. All sorts of motorists tend to exceed the speed limits.
I turn now to a road safety matter of far greater importance than the observance of speed limits, which can only make a relatively modest contribution to


road safety—the use of seat belts. Paragraph 28 of the new Highway Code states that
If you are involved in an accident, wearing a seat belt halves the risk of death or serious injury.
The important word here is "halves". We live in a motorised society in which about 60 per cent. of all households possess cars. In a constituency such as mine the proportion is probably nearer 70 per cent. Of the 6,000 deaths annually on the roads, only about half occur to people in cars, either drivers or passengers. These statistics relate directly to the wearing of seat belts. At present 25 to 30 per cent. of drivers and front-seat passengers wear seat belts.
Repeated campaigns of persuasion—and the recommendation in the Highway Code is part of that persuasion—to get more people to wear seat belts have had very little long-term effect. The experience has been that it is useless to demand and hopeless to expect a very great longterm difference in the proportion of people who will wear seat belts as a result of propaganda in the Highway Code, on television, or anywhere else. Such propaganda, whether in the Highway Code or in any other form, makes very little difference to the proportion of people wearing seat belts. Therefore, the advice in the code is not enough, and I deplore the fact that we do not have now the sanction of the force of law behind that recommendation in the code.
The experience in Australia and other countries which have compulsory wearing of seat belts has been that the wearing rate has increased from 25 or 30 per cent. to about 80 or 90 per cent. within two years of the legislation, reducing deaths on the road by about one-sixth. In this country that would mean a reduction by about 1,000 out of 6,000 deaths per year, and serious injuries would be reduced by about 10,000 per year. By any standards this is a very large saving of lives and of injuries. Every year we would save more lives on the roads than the whole of the deaths in Northern Ireland from violent causes in the past six years. No other road safety measure is remotely comparable one for potential effectiveness.
On 1st March 1976 the House gave a Second Reading—to reinforce the recommendation in the Highway Code—

to the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, by 249 votes to 139, a majority of 110. There was a free vote. It was a Government Bill. Among the 139 who voted against the Bill were the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. Those two right hon. Gentlemen have succeeded in frustrating the will of a large majority of the House, and the result is that about 1,000 more people will have died in 1977 than would otherwise have been the case, while about 10,000 additional people will have been seriously injured. The same thing will happen every year until this legislation is enacted. The Government cannot dodge responsibility for those deaths and injuries. It is true that the Bill had some determined opponents on both sides of the House, but the Government failed to arrange the timing of the business so that the will of the majority had a reasonable chance of prevailing.
The facts are clear. The Second Reading took place on 1st March 1976. There was a two-months' delay until the beginning of the Committee stage, which was completed in about one month, roughly coinciding with the month of May. There-after, there was another delay of one month until the Report stage on Friday 25th June. We all know that attendance on Friday is relatively low and that a large proportion of hon. Members are in their constituencies. To take controversial business on Friday amounts to a standing invitation to opponents of a controversial Bill to filibuster.
Nothing more happened throughout July and before the Summer Recess. We returned on Monday 11th October 1976 for the spill-over period and the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill was listed for debate on the following Thursday 14th October. It was fifth in line in the debates before the House. First that night was the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which took three hours. Then came the remaining stages on the Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill, which took two hours. Then there were Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. Fourth was the Public Lending Right Bill, which took until 1.15 a.m. on Friday 15th October.
In practical terms there was no hope of keeping a sufficient number to obtain a closure on the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, despite the large majority which the Bill had received on Second Reading. The


Government deliberately put the Bill on when they knew it could not get through. As a direct consequence, it is not on the statute book. There is no legal sanction to reinforce the recommendation in the Highway Code that we are now debating and the code is not an effective way of getting the public to comply.
The Bill has not been reintroduced by the Government, and they must take direct responsibility for the consequential 1,000 deaths and 10,000 injuries this year which would otherwise have been avoided. In that sense the Government in general and the Leader of the House in particular have blood on their hands. I want to know when the Government intend to bring back this legislation.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has spoken with great sincerity and in a very special way. I am sure that the Minister will take seriously what he said, because he knows my hon. Friend's depth of feeling on the subject.
I feel that I am almost a founder member of the club which debates this subject, having taken part in the one in November 1968 and again last year. It is always November, and here we are again in November.
I want first to criticise the Minister. Although he kept the pledge given by Mr. Richard Marsh and allowed us to debate the Green Paper on the Highway Code last year, there has been a great delay in implementing what was proposed. It is now 22 months since the Green Paper was first published, and it is 12 months since the debate. We pressed him last year about when the Highway Code would be approved, and he said:
All I can say is that it will be at some stage in 1977.
I do not think that even he thought that it would be the last week in November 1977. Certainly he would not have wanted to tell us then if he had thought so. It is rather late. However, there is no point in going back over what could have been.
It is right for me to thank the Minister for the courteous and full way in which he dealt with all the matters raised in last year's debate. I raised a number of points, and, having thanked me for doing

so, the Minister said that he would write to me about them as soon as he could. His words were:
I know that … he will not expect me to speak to them all this evening. I shall write to him and cover as many as I can. It will be a long letter and it may be some time before it comes, but I shall endeavour to meet his points."—[Official Report, 8th November 1976; Vol 919, c. 171.]
The first letter was not all that long in coming. It came on 14th January. The last letter came by urgent mail yesterday afternoon. But it came, and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
The Green Paper was a Green Paper in the best sense of our parliamentary system. It was discussed fully, and the Minister acted on a great many of the matters raised in the debate, quite a few of which I raised. I mention them briefly to emphasise them again, because they were considered important enough to make changes following last year's discussions.
One matter concerned zebra crossings, and encouraging, if not exhorting, pedestrians always to use them if there was one nearby. That is now incorporated in the new Highway Code.
I also pointed out that one should not park just opposite another car if the road was narrow, and not even near another car on the other side of the road. That. again, has been incorporated.
We had some discussion about signals, and the Minister has changed the wording of the code so that it now advises a driver to give the appropriate signal if necessary. The hon. Gentleman agreed that on some occasions signals were harmful rather than constructive.
I invited the hon. Gentleman to put in a paragraph about disc zones. I said that these were increasing all the time and that there should be more information about them in the new Highway Code. Again, he said that he would give more information, and this is now incorporated in the new code.
Finally, I raised a matter concerning bus lanes. I felt that there should be more information and advice to uses of the road about how to act in bus lanes. Here again, the hon. Gentleman has responded in a most helpful way.
The matter which caused the long delay in the Minister's replying to me con-


cerned mini-roundabouts. I said that by the time one had got into one there was no time to signal that one was leaving by the first junction, because the junctions were so close together. The Minister said that he thought that if he took up my point he would add to the confusion. I have no wish that he should do that. On the whole, I think that he is right. We must see how it goes. The last thing that I want to do is confuse the motorist. On this occasion, perhaps, we should leave the wording as it is and hope that it is clear for the future. I note that on roundabouts the code includes a reference to cyclists. That is important, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will be referring to that in due course. Most important of all, a roundabout is shown on the cover of the code. The diagram has been designed to emphasise the importance of observing the right procedure when negotiating roundabouts.
I mention three matters in my concluding remarks. Although they appear in the code they should be emphasised for the future. I hope that my remarks will be taken up by those who are listening to the debate. Last year we referred to cars displaying L-plates when a learner driver is not at the wheel. The Minister accepted that it was not right to do so. There is a phrase in the code directed to that subject, but the wording should be stronger. I hope that it will be stated in the next code that L-plates must on no account be displayed when drivers are on motorways. On motorways we all see cars bearing L-plates. On some occasions the standard of driving is such that we think the drivers are learners, although they should not be in that category. There should be a separate sentence that emphasises that on no account should drivers continue to display L-plates when on motorways.
Secondly, paragraph 60 refers to the importance of giving way to pedestrians who are crossing the road into which the driver is turning. The Americans have a better procedure, because in New York one sees the traffic stop to let the pedestrians cross. We do not see that happen in this country. Perhaps such a provision will be included in the next code. I hope that more emphasis will be placed on allowing pedestrians to cross the road into which the driver is turning.
The third and most important point is to persuade parents who are picking up their children from school not to park within the area of the school. In my constituency there are two or three schools from which hundreds of pupils emerge at almost the same time in the afternoon. I am afraid that some parents are selfish. During the Summer Recess I went to two or three schools in my constituency and spoke to the parents. I saw what they were doing and I spoke to them about it. I used words that perhaps one should not use to constituents with a General Election approaching. I did so because I felt so strongly.
We must do everything possible to ensure that when parents are picking up their children they do not park in the area immediately outside a school. It is terribly dangerous to park outside a school, because the children go out into the road and accidents can and do occur. I hope that the Minister will be able to refer to this matter above all others when he replies. I hope that he will ask parents not to park immediately outside a school when collecting their children but to park down the road and pick up their children in safety, even if it takes two or three minutes longer. In so doing the parents will instil in the children an appreciation of the dangers that are presented by cars.
Let us hope that our words on all the subjects mentioned will be helpful in future. I hope that the new Highway Code will be issued as soon as possible. I welcome it in the strongest possible manner. I hope that it will lead to greater safety on our roads.

12.14 a.m.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) made an informed and informative contribution. I endorse his remarks about the need to instruct parents on matters relating to collecting their children from school. The road safety officer for the borough of Ealing recently undertook a survey that was published in the Ealing Gazette last week. The survey demonstrated that many of the dangers faced by children on leaving school are solely attributable to parents. More surveys of that nature should be carried out.
At the risk of shattering the prejudice of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall


(Mr. Bidwell), I wish to speak not on behalf of those who drive fast cars but for those who ride slow bicycles. I shall address myself to paragraphs 35 and 36 of the code. First, I welcome the fact that cyclists now have nine out of a total of 185 paragraphs as opposed to six out of 150 in the former Code. I am sure that that is a reflection of the increased interest in and concern for the cyclist.
I refer briefly to three matters, on two of which the Under-Secretary of State touched in his opening remarks. In paragraph 129 it is stated:
At night you must have front and rear lamps and a rear reflector.
At the moment there is nothing to stop a cyclist having lamps that are powered by hub or tyre dynamo, but these go out when he stops, and the cyclist is thus often left in the middle of the road waiting to turn right without a headlight. He is extremely vulnerable.
We should consider tightening this up. In the United States it is not necessary to have a lamp; one can have a reflector in front and at the rear. The cyclist is not bothered to see where he is going. He is much more concerned about being seen by other traffic. The time might come to switch the emphasis away from lamps and to reflectors. On a more domestic note, it is worth remarking that the bicycles in the House of Commons bicycle pool have been equipped with flashers on the spokes so that the cycle can be seen from the side, a vulnerable point from which the front and rear lamps cannot be seen.
I do not want this to be compulsory, but perhaps if these side flashers are seen to be successful we can have a similar recommendation next time that cyclists should instal them.
My second point was mentioned by the Minister. It concerns the use of bus lanes by cyclists. Paragraph 133 contains the rather dogmatic sentence
You must not use other bus lanes.
The Minister has in mind here the contra-flow bus lanes. But the statement is too categoric. In Nottingham, where there was an experimental scheme, cyclists were allowed to use these contra-flow bus lanes, and I can envisage circumstances in which that would be quite safe.
In Piccadilly there is such a lane, but it is separated from the non-contra-flow traffic by a sizeable pavement, so that there is no risk of the cyclist's being run over by traffic coming the other way. But the Minister's statement in the Highway Code will stop cyclists in all future traffic schemes using contra-flow bus lanes even though it may be safe for them to do so. I know that the Cyclists' Touring Club is concerned about this, as are one or two local authorities.
I am concerned also about the question of roundabouts. The document "A proposed new Highway Code Paper for Parliamentary debate" advised the cyclist to dismount his bicycle and to negotiate the roundabout
preferably by a pedestrian route.
These five words have been deleted in the new document before us because of a case before the courts, I believe. It seems that if a cyclist is pushing his cycle on a pedestrian crossing he may not have the protection afforded to a pedestrian not pushing a cycle.
It is important, however, to clarify the position of cyclists on zebra crossings. Since the phrase has been left out of the Highway Code there is no recommendation for cyclists to use zebra crossings, but that should be the advice to them because that is the safest way of crossing a busy road, particularly one that is approaching a roundabout.
If the Minister can deal with these points it would show his enthusiasm for the cyclist—an enthusiasm which was never doubted—and would clarify these matters for those of us who go round on two wheels.

Mr. Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have observed that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who was not prepared to give way to me, has been talking nonstop throughout the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).

Mr. Bidwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard every word that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) spoke. I did not think that it was of a powerful substance, but I listened carefully to it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order,


Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) was making was that we on the Opposition Benches could hear every word that the hon. Member spoke during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has always been among the best of parliamentary traditions that hon. Members should listen to the speeches of other hon. Members without interruption.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I shall limit my remarks to a few specific points. I trust that after your endearing words to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hon. Members on both sides will listen to what I have to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) at the outset of his speech discussed the difficulties of getting the public to read this admirable document. Indeed, he referred to the document as a work of reference but did not carry that point any further.
The Highway Code has developed considerably over the years since most of us took our driving tests. At the outset it was very simple. It had large lettering, a few numbers, and so on, and very few pages. Since the 1969 equivalent, which had 51 pages, it has now grown to 70 pages. Not only has it grown to 70 pages, but the print in many instances is smaller and therefore the contents are greater. In my view, people will not read this code any more than they read works of reference generally. Nevertheless, one hopes that we can encourage more people to buy it. Price is important. I hope that the Government will keep down the price as much as possible. The Highway Code is not classical bed-time or other reading. Regarding its status as a work of reference, if more and more things are poured into it, it will grow even larger and may end up as a hard-backed tome of considerable substance.
I make one specific point about the validity of the Highway Code in courts of law. Its validity is referred to in very small print at the bottom of page 5. I suggest that this is a matter of considerable importance to the reader. I hope that the Government will take this point

on board for the future. I believe that it deserves more emphasis. The vital words are:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings "—
it points out that it applies both to civil and to criminal preceedings—
be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
That is an important statement. Indeed, this code is referred to in motoring proceedings, as some of us know. I certainly have experience of that fact. If anybody is in breach of the code, it is gloatingly referred to by the other side in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is not enough for this important statement to appear in small print at the bottom of page 5.
I turn next to the delay. The Minister's only comment was that the delay was due primarily to the necessity to get parliamentary approval. That is not sufficient explanation. I appreciate the difficulties of our procedures and of parliamentary time, but to go from January 1975 when the Green Paper came out until now—three years, in effect—and to have had two debates on the Floor of the House seems a cumbersome way of doing things. I suggest—I hope that I shall not be unpopular—that this is the kind of thing which, parliamentary rules and customs permitting, could be dealt with rapidly upstairs where we could have a more interesting and longer debate about it. Members who are particularly interested in these matters could participate just as well upstairs as on the Floor of the House. That is just a thought, but such a procedure might counter considerable delay.
I suggest that, bearing in mind the length of the document, an index should be considered for the future. There is a helpful list of contents at the beginning, but there is no detailed index and it is difficult to find many items.
Rule 92, dealing with box junctions, is a humble little paragraph hidden away in the middle of many other matters. There is no mention of the fact that the rule applies not only where there is a box junction but where there is not one. This is one of the rules of motoring that


are most disobeyed. It is infuriating, as one struggles through the traffic to get to this place, to find oneself in a queue because of the abuse of this rule.
I mention dipped headlights only briefly because there is no mention of the fact that their use is very much a double-edged sword. This is a slightly controversial matter. The use of dipped headlights in built-up areas makes it easier for the pedestrian to see a car, but in the face of oncoming headlights it makes it difficult for the motorist to see a pedestrian.
Paragraph 28 deals with the wearing of seat belts, and here I disagree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), although I respect them. This is the only part of the report that deserves to have strong language used against it. I wear my seat belt but I do not believe that I should make everyone else do the same. It is not good enough to have such a small paragraph dealing with a matter that is so crucial to road safety. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with that.
Those are the specifics, and I invite the Minister to reply to the point about procedure and delay.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I shall be brief because I understand that the debate must end at 12.43 a.m. and I want to allow the Minister ample time in which to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate must end at 12.42 a.m.

Mr. Moate: I refer first to the procedure, a matter which was touched on by my right hon. Friend for Crosby (Mr. Page) and on which the Minister commented. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that we are discussing not the Highway Code but the proposed alterations to it. The Select Committee, on which I serve, felt that this was not in accordance with the terms of the Act. Despite the sensible answers that we have received and the sensible procedure that has been adopted, I do not feel that what has been done conforms to the original intentions of the Act. I hope that if we are to consider new procedures we can tidy up that aspect of the matter.
How much easier it would nave been tonight had all hon. Members been able to look at the proposed alterations. They could have done so had they looked at the First Report from the Select Cornminttee where the alterations are listed. Hon. Members have been referring not to the alterations but to the code.
The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred to speed limits, but these are not mentioned in the proposed alterations. That emphasises the need for a debate on road safety generally, but it does not meet the terms of the motion. I think that there is a case for the House to have before it the alterations that are being made, and in this case that object has been achieved by the Select Committee, although most hon. Members were not aware of it.
I take this step further. Is there not a case for saying that the next time there is a major redraft the alterations should be shown in the code? It might be of advantage to diligent hon. Members, road users and others who read the code to be able to see at a glance the significant changes that have been made since the last print, instead of having to read the code from beginning to end.
My next point is on whether the code is read. I shall not revert to the previous debate tonight and the arguments about how we spend our money. The Government are proposing to spend £10 million on direct elections to the European Parliament. How much better it would be if we had £10 million to spend on advertising the Highway Code.
I urge upon the Minister—although I suspect that I need not do so—the priority that should be given to road safety. Last year, 300,000 people were injured on the roads, there were about 7,000 deaths and nearly 60,000 people were seriously injured. Road safety is the Department's most important responsibility. I do not wish to be personal about this, but I do not believe that the Minister or his predecessors have injected into the question of road safety the energy and drive that they ought to have injected. I believe that that is a very serious criticism of the Government.
We were promised a road safety statement at the time the White Paper was issued. We were then told that a statement would be made at the time of the Queen's Speech. We have had the


Queen's Speech, but we have had nothing about road safety—nothing about seat belts, or motor-cyclists. This is a serious failure on the part of the Government, and I hope that we shall have an early statement to compensate for it.
There is no reference to speed limits in the Highway Code. I presume that that is customary and intentional. But the speed limits are still temporary; I believe that they expire some time in 1978. When does the Minister intend to make them permanent?

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall make four points, briefly. I shall totally ignore the speech of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). If he were the man with the red flag, waving it in front of a Conservative car, we would be happier with his speech.
Paragraph 7 refers to advice to people in charge of children. That is very important, and it is right that we should accept responsibility for setting a publicly accepted age at which children can do certain things. I am glad to see these points in the new code.
Page 6 is about a minor change on the reflective strips underneath pedestrians standing at the road side. I think that we should try to get more reflective strips. Many roads are ill-lit and it is important that they should have reflective strips which can be picked up by headlights.
I believe that we should encourage the use of internationally known road signs. In my constituency the heavy continental traffic comes up the A.2. Because they do not know them, foreign lorry drivers frequently ignore the signs which show that a particular stretch of road is very dangerous.
My final point is that the number of road deaths has been held steady recently. This is not only to do with the Highway Code, but also to do with highway construction. I hope that the Minister will get on with building more roads, especially relief roads through constituencies such as mine, which suffer from many accidents.

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Horam: This has been an extremely important and interesting debate. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) asked two questions. He

wanted to know what publicity there would be at the time of the launching of the Highway Code. We will have a special publicity campaign to coincide with the launching. Secondly, he mentioned, in that connection, a point about vehicle licensing and asked whether Swansea could do something about it. We explored the possibility, because we thought it was a helpful suggestion, but we found that we could not put the code as such into the machines which packaged the reminder forms because they were too large. We had thought of putting in some wayside pulpit-type reminder such as "Think about motorcyclists today", but we found that this slightly contradicted the general desire to streamline and simplify the process and make it more effective.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) both asked about the road safety statement which the Secretary of State has mentioned more than once. We shall make plain our view about road safety. We have not entirely decided what form it should take—whether it should be a statement or a White Paper, or something else. But we remain committed to making our views known Again, I cannot give a definite answer on that matter tonight.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) has apologised for having to leave, but I want to make one comment on his delightful speech. He referred to the two parellel nails denoting semiautomatic railway barriers. That sign has been discontinued, and that is why it has been dropped from the new code.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I must inform him that with the volume of traffic on the roads at present, we believe we have gone beyond the stage where the courtesy type of approach is any longer effective. That is the situation when on compares the modern attitude with the one he mentioned.

Mr. Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Horam: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have only six minutes to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made a forceful speech which, in a remarkable way. illuminated the issue involving legislation on seat


belts. We very much regret the fact that there has not been progress. I believe legislation on seat belts will come into force at some stage, but the question is "when?". The hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is a substantial minority of opinion against it, and we must recognise that factor. If that substantial minority had not existed, I think that the Bill would have become law.

Mr. Jessel: There was a majority of 110.

Mr. Horam: There are two sides to the question, but I do not want to take the matter further. I repeat that if that minority had not existed, by now the law would have been in existence.
I wish to thank the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) for his remarks. We have got five out of six right, which must be some kind of record, and on the last matter we managed to persuade him that he was wrong and we were right. I was grateful for the three fresh suggestions relating to L-plates, pedestrian crossings, and parking near schools. He will see that that last matter is referred to in Rule 116. We shall try to strengthen that point in future editions of the code—and I hope that on this occasion it will not be as far off as eight years.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) raised three points about cyclists and asked about the procedure at roundabouts. We have dropped that wording not because of the court case but because of objections by the Cycling Council, which thought that it was not helpful to cyclists because it created a doubt in those places where no crossing facilities were available.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) mentioned the delay in producing the Highway Code. I must accept responsibility for the length of time, but the fact that we did not have this debate in July when we wanted it caused difficulties. He made a helpful procedural suggestion that we should take such matters upstairs. I wish we could implement that suggestion, but it would involve a change in procedure and such a change would involve not merely those of us who are interested in road safety. The hon. Gentleman wanted a fuller contents page. It is fuller now than before,

but perhaps we should go further in that direction, although I am not entirely persuaded of that.
The hon. Member for Faversham said that speed limits were not listed. They are listed, in the section on the law's demands. He also asked when they will become permanent. We are in a difficulty with the statutory procedures there, because speed limits are never permanent. They are renewable every 18 months, or some such period, under the legislation according to which speed limits are imposed. They cannot, in the nature of things, become permanent. They lapse after a period unless renewed by legislation. The hon. Gentleman also wanted alterations listed. I take it from that that he was satisfied with the annexe to the appendix of the Committee. I am glad to hear that because we wanted some advice from the Committee, which was not forthcoming, on how we should proceed. However, if the hon. Gentleman is now saying that that was a satisfactory way of proceeding we shall take note of that in future.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), mentioned the need for road building, and that is a fundamental and correct point. There is no surer way of cutting down the number of accidents than by building roads properly—and motorways are our safest roads. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want Woolwich plastered with motorways, but I agreed that some humble relief roads would help. With the change in attitude to roads we can expect more by-passes rather than fewer.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Before the debate ends I should like to say thank-you to the Minister for his encouragement for relief roads in my constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the proposed alterations contained in the new Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 3) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 3rd November be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS

That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]

That the Coypus (Keeping) Order 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 22nd November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be amended, by leaving out Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke and inserting Mr. Ian Gow.—[Mr. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — LAND AUTHORITY FOR WALES (STAFF APPOINTMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

12.42 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I welcome the opportunity for this debate. I should like to say at the outset that I am in full agreement with the principles that led to the setting up of the Welsh Land Authority and with its objectives. Nevertheless, there is considerable concern now over the appointment of Mr. Anthony Johnson as its legal adviser.
I shall give the House the essential background of the matter. There has been an extravagant misuse of public funds—because it is, of course, ultimately the ratepayers and taxpayers who have to pay the bill. The basic facts are that Mr. Johnson was appointed to this position in the summer of 1976 on a grade going up to £11,500 per annum. He had previously left his job as Secretary to the Hampshire County Council in 1975, allegedly through ill health. No details have been reported publicly, as far as I

am aware, of the nature of the illness. Likewise, no independent medical evidence was submitted in support of that claim. There have also been reports in the Press that certain aspects of his work with Hampshire County Council were criticised.
What is confirmed is that Mr. Johnson was paid an index-linked pension. Reports stated that the pension started at £6,400 per annum and that it could eventually amount to more than his present salary. It is now allegedly around £10,000 per annum. In addition, he is reported to have received a golden handshake amounting to about £20,000.
Mr. Johnson is a relatively young man—44 years of age. He left his employment in Hampshire at the age of 42. According to the South Wales Echoof 26th September, the Hampshire County Council chief executive, Mr. Keith Robinson, said that while on sick pay with the Hampshire County Council Mr. Johnson was paid £14,200 and was also given permission to lecture in the Southampton Polytechnic—which, incidentally, is a body funded by the county council—and for this separate appointment he was paid at the rate of £5,400 per annum. Again, according to the Western Mailof 1st July, a spokesman for the county council said that Mr. Johnson is now fit again.
I suggest that this is a pretty remarkable story so far. It would appear to me that the county council was not a particularly zealous custodian of the public purse.
I was concerned about this case, so, early in July of this year, I got in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and called for an inquiry into the whole matter. I posed a number of questions. First, I asked what was the total length of service of Mr. Johnson in local government. Secondly, I asked what was the nature of the illness which brought about his retirement at the age of 42 and what supporting medical evidence was supplied to his employers. Thirdly, I asked what was the precise time at which he took up employment with Southampton Polytechnic. Fourthly, I asked what medical evidence was provided before he took up the latter appointment, and


whether that appointment was superannuated. I also asked for confirmation of his salary as Secretary of the Hampshire County Council, the precise amount of his golden handshake from that body, and what were the terms and conditions of his inflation-proofed pension. This information is vital to the public, bearing in mind that he held the post of secretary for only 12 months.
In passing, I could not help comparing the treatment afforded to Mr. Johnson with that afforded to manual workers in heavy industry. I have in my hand a copy of the manual grades superannuation scheme for steel workers employed by the British Steel Corporation. It is fair to suggest that the rewards paid to our Steel workers after a lifetime in the industry are parsimonious by comparison with what Mr. Johnson has received. Many miners in South Wales—some in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister—has spent 40 years in that arduous and hazardous industry. Their lungs get clogged in the end, but they receive only a pittance.
I turn to Mr. Johnson's appointment with the Land Authority for Wales. Presumably this body made a full investigation into his background of service in local government and so on. That would seem to be the natural thing to do, bearing in mind the importance of the problem. But can the Minister confirm that this was done, because it seems that that might not be the case? The rôle of people in high places in the Land Authority is called into question here.
I am particularly concerned about obtaining answers to the questions that I have put. I have written to many people about this case, including the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the local government Ombudsman for Wales, the district auditor and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I have heard of political hot potatoes, but this case reminds me of a game played by my young daughters at birthday parties. It is called "Pass the Parcel" and the one left with the parcel at the end carries the can, so to speak. The Secretary of State for Wales told me on 27th July that this case was not his baby and that he was unable to comment on the matter. The local government Ombuds-

man, Mr. Dafydd Jones-Williams, said that he had no jurisdiction to look into the matter. He suggested that I went to the district auditor.
In the letter of 9th August, the district auditor said that this matter was not within his jurisdiction. He sent a letter to Mr. A. J. Kappler, the district auditor who covers the Hampshire County Council, but I have not yet heard from him.
The district auditor in Cardiff also told me that responsibility for auditing the accounts of the Land Authority rested with the Exchequer and Audit Department. I wrote to Mr. Douglas Henley there, and on 4th October he said that he had no responsibility for this county council matter, that Mr. Johnson's appointment with the Land Authority had come up for review in the normal course of the audit, but that his conditions of service, including superannuation, had not yet been finalised.
There have been other snippets of information forthcoming. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told me on 18th July:
The mode of superannuation for Mr. Johnson in his present employment is undecided.
That is 12 months after the appointment had been made. My hon. Friend's letter continues:
If Mr. Johnson re-enters the local Government scheme, he will become subject to the abatement provisions, the effect of which is to ensure that pension, together with the pay on entering the new appointment, does not exceed the pay of the former post.
Is the pension referred to in that letter the £6,400 that Mr. Johnson was receiving when he left his appointment with the county council or the £10,000 that he gets now?
If Mr. Johnson joins the South Glamorgan superannuation scheme, part of his pension could be wiped out. Then the public purse would be at least partly safeguarded. Nevertheless, the honourable course for Mr. Johnson is to forgo the pension or to resign his position with the Land Authority.
The whole sordid story is one of laxity and mis-management. Some of us have been saying for a long time that the local government reform carried out by the previous Government helped trigger off inflation, which has done so much damage to our economy. Cases such as Mr. Johnson's only confirm our misgivings. How


many more Mr. Johnsons are there? His case was brought to public notice only by accident. The Western Mail deserves full praise for bringing it to public notice.
I opposed the Government's recent public expenditure cuts, and I felt fully justified. A few days ago the Government published a study of school buildings. The South Wales Argus reported on 22nd November:
Only half the secondary schools in Britain have adequate space for pupils and one in four schools still have outdoor lavatories, according to a government education department survey published today.
The survey says there are ' serious deficiencies' in a substantial minority of older schools and it would cost £1,500 million to put all the short-comings right.
Education secretary Mrs. Shirley Williams has suggested that only one in ten schools will get the money they need in the next few years.
Despite that, money can be misused, as I have illustrated in the case of Mr. Johnson. It is a public scandal.
It has not escaped my notice that many of those opposed to the creation of a Welsh Assembly are allegedly opposed on grounds of cost, yet many of them supported the reform of local government. The cost of a Welsh Assembly would be infinitesimal in comparison.
The Government should grasp the nettle and streamline local government to avoid any more cases such as that of Mr. Johnson, cutting out one tier of local government and ignoring the vested interests which are making so much noise. Then we can talk of saving public money, not squandering it as has happened in the case of Mr. Johnson.

12.59 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Strange as it may seem, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) for raising this subject tonight. I am grateful to him for his support of members of the Land Authority for Wales. I am also grateful to him for the support he has indicated for the establishment of a Welsh Assembly.
The matter my hon. Friend has raised has aroused considerable interest among hon. Members—not that one would notice it by the attendance in the Chamber now, although that is the norm on these occasions, so I do not complain.
It has also aroused considerable interest in the Press and among the general public. I believe that to be a right and proper interest.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members first questioned me about appointments to the Authority at Question Time on 11th July last, but I shall take this further opportunity to supply a more detailed account of the statutory provisions governing the appointment of staff to the Land Authority for Wales so that the House will be clear about my right hon. and learned Friend's position in relation to such appointments.
One of the first tasks of my right hon. and learned Friend in fulfilling his statutory responsibilities under the 1975 Act was to choose the nine members of the Land Authority. This he did shortly after Royal Assent was received. As an indication of the extent to which we value the interest and the co-operation of local authorities in Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend went out of his way to make special provisions for local authority members to sit on the Board of the Land Authority. In fact, four of the nine LAW members were appointed in this way after a round of consultations with the local authority associations.
By the time the Board had been appointed, a small staff was already in post, including staff seconded from the Welsh Office, and office accommodation had been provided. The next step was to build up the complement of staff. In this respect, I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that when the Community Land Bill was first published a staffing requirement for Wales of 750 was envisaged. Indeed, approval was later given to an initial complement of 200, but, in the event, the Authority has done its "housekeeping" so well that it has managed with fewer than 50 staff. This is a remarkable achievement, and one which should silence opponents of what is sometimes referred to as our "swollen bureaucracy".
The members of the Authority and this reduced staff have worked extremely hard in their first year. Even the Press acknowledges their efforts—and I can do no better than to quote the Economistof 3rd–9th September, in a special article on the community land scheme, which reviewed progress by local authorities in


England and went on to describe the Land Authority for Wales as one of the
good bits of the scheme".
The quotation continues:
In contrast to England, where the jam for the scheme has been spread thinly over a large number of local authorities, the government gave one £3m. dollop to the Land Authority for Wales, and left it alone. Because of that, and because it concentrates solely on buying and selling development land, it acquired 400 acres of land at a cost of £1·9m., in just six months leading up to April 5th. If the full value of the land is realised when it is sold the authority stands to make a profit of £¾–2m.
Comments like this—and I could quote many more—are most encouraging, and especially satisfying to my right hon. and learned Friend and myself, because we know, from our detailed surveillance of the work it does, that the Authority is doing a first-class job. Its approach combines business realism and social awareness. It is seeking profit for the community, and it looks for areas where development is needed to assist local people—when houses are wanted or land should be secured for a new factory or shop. It has carried on the fullest discussions with local authorities—which is of the first importance—and it has consulted Government Departments, agencies, trade associations and many other bodies.
These are early days, of course, and I am not offering a final judgment. But the Authority is working well, and much of its success can be directly traced to the skills and determination of its Chairman. She has shown all the qualities which were essential to build up this structure and, what is more, to make matters go so well.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would be giving an account of the statutory provisions governing the appointment of staff to the Land Authority. As my hon. Friend knows, the Authority was set up under the provisions of Part II and Schedule 3 to the Community Land Act 1975. Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 3, the Secretary of State is required to give formal approval to the appointment of the "secretary", as he is referred to in the Act—in other words, the Chief Executive. But in all other cases the choice of individual is a matter entirely for the Authority to decide.
I repeat what I said to the House on 11th July—that the only appointment to the staff of the Authority which needs my right hon. and learned Friend's specific approval is that of its Chief Executive. Of course, in the final analysis the Government retain the overall controls of the Authority's administration. The complement of staff and the various gradings and salaries can be determined only after consulting the Secretary of State, acting with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.
I said a moment ago that the appointment of particular officers to fill posts below the rank of Chief Executive was a matter for the Authority itself. But the Land Authority for Wales was nevertheless encouraged from the beginning to adopt the recruitment procedures generally followed by public bodies when taking on staff, and I expect that my hon. Friend would like to know something about the steps taken by it to comply with these procedures in relation to the post of Director of Legal Services.
The post was widely advertised in the usual way, and candidates from a short list were interviewed in January 1976. The Authority's choice finally settled upon Mr. Anthony Johnson, who took up his post in May after supplying medical and other references. I have been in touch with the Authority about this, and I have no reason to question its statement that, as with all other appointments, its aim was to choose the person best qualified to be its legal adviser and ensure that he was paid the rate already agreed for the job.
My hon. Friend made certain references to Mr. Johnson's previous appointment. Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend has responsibility for those matters. That is an arrangement between Mr. Johnson's previous employer and himself. But I have made inquiries into this, and some of the figures which my hon. Friend gave are not quite right, according to my information.
I place on record that my information is that Mr. Johnson's pension on retirement amounted to £4,876, and that he is now, with inflation-proofing, which was decided by this House, getting £5,812 per annum. Any question about his state of health for pension purposes is a matter for the Hampshire County Council.
Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no power to intervene in pension matters affecting individuals, except in so far as the employee himself has and exercises a right of appeal.

Mr. Roy Hughes: With regard to the figures which my hon. Friend gave concerning Mr. Johnson's retirement pension with Hampshire County Council, with inflation proofing, I fail to understand the lack of communication, because the figures I gave have been repeated time and again in many sections of the Press. Why, if they were inaccurate, have they not been refuted before?

Mr. Jones: I do not propose to spend my time refuting figures which have appeared in the Press. If I am wrong I shall certainly do everything I can to correct this. My information is that the figures I have given are the actual figures for the pension Mr. Johnson received at the time of his retirement. With inflation-proofing the figure at 25th July 1977 was £5,812. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environ-

ment does not have powers to intervene in pension matters. Any local government elector in Hampshire can challenge the employer's actions at the annual audit of account, and I understand that this is being done.
My hon. Friend asked me about the extent to which Mr. Johnson's conditions of service with the Authority have yet to be finalised. I readily concede that it is taking a long time to settle the superannuation arrangements arising out of Mr. Johnson's conditions of service with the Authority but superannuation is, after all, a complicated subject, and complicated subjects take time to unravel.
What I can say is that we are looking at all the implications of the matter and will reach a full and considered judgment as soon as we possibly can. In our review of the case we shall make a close examination of the facts and opinions which have been expressed by my hon. Friend in tonight's debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past One o'clock.